* The Honorable J. Garvan Murtha, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

** The Honorable Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., who was originally assigned to the panel for this appeal, recused himself and did not participate. The two remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement, have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. IOP E(b). 10-2597-cr United States v. Velasco
**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 
**SUMMARY ORDER**

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **.** At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 11 thday of May, two thousand twelve. 4 5 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 6 Circuit Judge , 7 J. GARVAN MURTHA, * 8 District Judge. ** 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 14 Appellee , 15 16 -v.- 10-2597-cr 17 18 RIGOBERTO VELASCO, AKA FLACO, 19 20 Defendant

- Appellant. 21 22 232 FOR APPELLANT: James M. Branden, New York, NY. 1 2 FOR APPELLEE: Reed M. Brodsky, Assistant United States 3 Attorney (Katherine Polk Failla, 4 Assistant United States Attorney, on the 5 brief ), forPreet Bharara, United States 6 Attorney for the Southern District of New 7 York, New York, NY. 8 9 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 10 Southern District of New York (Preska, C.J .). 11 12 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 13
**AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 14

**AFFIRMED**
. 15 Plaintiff-Appellant Rigoberto Velasco appeals from a 16 judgment of conviction entered in the United States District 17 Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, C.J. ), 18 following his guilty plea to three counts of drug-related 19 offenses. In addition to sentencing Velasco to 188 months’ 20 imprisonment and five years’ supervised release, the 21 district court imposed a $20,000 fine, forfeiture in the 22 amount of $5,000,000 in United States currency and three 23 properties, and a mandatory $300 special assessment. We 24 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 25 and procedural history of the case. 26 Velasco contends that the imposition of the $20,000 27 fine was unreasonable because the district court did not 283 consider Velasco’s inability to pay the fine and because the 1 fine was excessive. We typically review the imposition of a 2 fine for abuse of discretion, United States v. Salameh , 261 3 F.3d 271, 276 (2d Cir. 2001), but because Velasco did not 4 challenge the fine in the proceedings below, his claim on 5 appeal is subject to review for plain error, see United 6 States v. Pfaff , 619 F.3d 172, 173 (2d Cir. 2010). 7 We have reviewed the record in light of Velasco’s 8 specific allegations, and we find his arguments to be wholly 9 without merit. Velasco failed to meet his burden of 10 demonstrating his inability to pay the fine when he refused 11 to provide any information regarding his financial 12 condition. See Salameh , 261 F.3d at 276; United States v. 13
Sasso , 59 F.3d 341, 352 (2d Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). 14 Specifically, Velasco failed to complete and return a 15 financial statement to the Probation Office. He also 16 declined to discuss the source of money for a substantial 17 down payment on his home and how much money he had paid to 18 retain counsel. 19 Moreover, the Presentence Report, which drew no 20 relevant objections from Velasco at sentencing, and the 21 parties’ stipulated preliminary order of forfeiture contain 224 a number of facts bearing on Velasco’s ability to pay a 1 fine. First, Velasco had obtained millions of dollars from 2 operating a long-term narcotics trafficking business. 3 Second, he had lived a lavish lifestyle, owning three real 4 estate properties, one of which contained seven flat-screen 5 televisions and expensive furnishings. Third, Velasco had 6 the means to support his partner and three children for many 7 years. Based on the unchallenged facts in the record and 8 Velasco’s refusal to cooperate with the Probation Office in 9 exploring his financial resources, it was well within the 10 district court’s discretion to impose the fine. See Sasso , 11 59 F.3d at 352. 12 Finally, because the $20,000 fine was within, and 13 indeed, at the low end of the Guidelines range, we find no 14 error in the district court’s failure to make specific 15 findings in support of the fine. See id. We have 16 considered Velasco’s remaining arguments and find them to be 17 without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of 18 the district court is hereby **AFFIRMED**
. 19
20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24