## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3441 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C AL VI N B R OWN, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 4:09- cr-40072- GPM- 1

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 7, 2011

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 18, 2011

B efore P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Cal vi n B ro w n ple d gui l ty to th r ee dr ug - r el at ed o ffen se s i n May 20 10 a nd was s en ten ce d i n O ctob er 2010. H e ch all en ges th e d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on notto applythe Fai r Se ntenci ng Act, Pub. L. 11 1- 220, 12 4 S tat . 23 72 ( 2010 ) , ath is sente nci ng. H e a l so ar gues that the di str i ct c ourter ro neousl y b el i eve d that he was subj ect to a $ 300 m an d atorym i ni m um fi ne f or2 N o. 10

- 3441 each c ount o fco nvi cti on, tho ugh hi s co nvi cti ons have no s uch m andator y m i ni m um fi nes. I n l i g htof o ur hol di ngi n U nited Sta tes v. Fisher, 63 5 F.3d 336 ( 7th Cir. 2011), w e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s d ecision not to ap p ly th e Fair Sen ten cing A c t a t Brow n’s sen ten cing. W e agree , h o w ever, that th e d istri ct cou rt w as no t requ ired to im p ose u p on B ro w n a n y m an d atory m inim um fines. To the exte ntthat the d istr ictcou rt unde r st o o d the fines he i m po se d a s o bl i g at o r y, the m ista k e of law cons titute s clear error. See U nited Sta tes v. M cM ath , 5 5 9 F
. 3 d 6 57, 6 6 3 n . 2 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ [ A] m ist ak e o f law ge n er ally sa tis fies cle ar err or . . . .”); cf. U ni t e d S tat e s v. Jade rany, 22 1 F
. 3d 989, 99 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( “W e m ay re ver se a di str i ct c ourt ’ s d ec i si on t o re fuse a [dow nw ard ] d ep artu re w he n it m akes a m istake of law
. ”). W e, ther ef or e, vac ate Bro w n ’s fines a nd r em and fo r re ass ess m ent.
I . B a c kg r o und Brown was i nd i cted o n thr ee drug- rel ate d charg es on October6, 20 09 . Count Ichar ged thathe pos ses sed with i nt en t to di st r ibut e fi ve g r ams o rmor e o f crac kc o ca i ne o n May 3, 2 007, i n v i o l at i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) a nd (b )(1) (B ); C ou n t II ch ar ge d th ath e d ist rib u te d h er oin o n J une 2 , 2 00 9, i n v i o l at i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C); and Count I I Ichar ged thathe di str ibuted cr ack o n J une 8 , 2 00 9, i n vi o l at i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C). H e pl ed gui l ty to al l t h re e counts on M ay 13, 2010
.N o. 10

- 3441 3 Br o wn was se nt en ce d o n Oc tober 4, 20 10 , t wo months afterCongr ess enact ed the Fai r Se ntenci ng Act ( “FS A ”) an d t wo mo n th s b e f o r e th e a me n d e d g u i d e l i n e s we nt i nto effect. I gnor i ng the FS A , the dist ri ct c ou rtf ound that B ro wn ha d a n o ffen se l ev elo f3 5 an d a c r i m i na lhi story ca te g o r y of V I
. Acco r di ng l y, i t f o und tha t hi s g ui del i ne ran ge w as 292-36 5 m ont hs of im p riso n m e nt, ten yea rs of supervi sed re l eas e, a fi ne r ange of$2 0, 000 to $8, 000, 000, and a $3 00 speci alas ses sm ent. I t s entence d him to 29 2 m ont hs of im p risonm en t on eac h cou nt, to r u n conc urre ntl y, f ol l owed byei ght y ear s o fsup er vise d rel eas e o n C ou n t I and s i x yea rs of supervi sed re l eas e on Counts II and I I I, al so to run co ncurr entl y. I t then i m posed $1 , 200 i n fi nes, co nsi sting o fa $300 m an dator y s peci alas ses sm ent a nd a $3 00 fi ne o n eac h ofBro w n’s thr ee counts o fc o nv i cti o n. I t ex pl aine d tha t i t was i m po sing“ a m an datory m i ni m um fi ne [ o f ] $ 30 0 o n e ac h c o unta nd si m i l ar l y $ 30 0 o n a s pec i ala ss es sment . S o you end u p w i th a $1, 200 fi ne. ” Bro w n ti m el y a pp eal s.
I I . Discussi on Br o wn r ai se s two a r g um en ts o n a ppea l
. F i r st, he c o nten d s tha t the d istri ct cou rt shou ld h ave ap p li ed the FSA i n i m posi ng i ts sente n c e. H ad i t done so, he c l ai m s, hi s a dvis or y Gui del i nes r ange w oul d have dropped fr om 292- 365 m onths ofi m pri sonm ent t o 210- 262 m onths. H e a l so ar gues that the di strict court m i sta kenl y b elieved that each c ount ca rr i ed a $ 300 m andator y m i nim um fi ne.4 N o. 10

- 3441 A . The Fai rSentenci ng A cti s Not R et r oact i ve . A l though B row n’s o ffenses o ccurr ed befor e Congr ess en ac te d t h e F S A , h e c laim s t h atth e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld ha ve a ppl i ed th e F S A ats en te nc i ngb ec au se hi s se ntencing o ccurr ed afteri t was enac ted. S i nce he never a s k e d th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o s e n t e n c e h i m u n d e rth e F S A, w e re vie w h is a rg u m en t fo r p lain err or . U ni t e d S t at e s v. G arre tt, 528 F
. 3d 52 5, 5 27( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ex pl aini ng th atp lain err o r re vie w ap p lies w h en a d efe n d an t n eg lig en tly f a i l s t o r a i s e a s e n t e n c i n ga r g u me n tb e f o r e t he dist ri ct c ourtatth e t i m e o fse ntenci ng, but att em pts to raise i t before the C ou rt of A p p eals). B ro w n ’s a rg u m en t is fore c los ed by ou r op in ion in U nited Sta tes v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 33 6 , 3 4 0 ( 7t h C ir. 20 11 ), in w h ich w e h eld th at th e F SA d oe s n otap p ly re tr oa c tiv ely to de fen dan ts who c o m m i tt ed th ei ro ffen se s be f o r e th e FSA w as enact ed on Au gust 3, 20 10, despi te the f act that th eirse ntenci ng o ccurr ed afterthe FS A ’ s e nactm ent. Id. at 338, 34 0; s e ea l s o U n i t e dS t a t e s v . Ho l c o mb , N os . 1 1- 15 5 8, 11 -15 59 , 11-1 58 6, 11 -17 58 , 201 1 W L 37 95 17 0, at*1 ( 7th Ci r. A ug. 24, 20 11) ( en banc) (d ecl i ni ng to r eve rs e Fish er ). W e deny Brown ’ s a l ternati ve re quest fora l im i ted re m and to perm i t the di strict court to deter m i ne wh ether i t woul d l i k e to r es en te nc e hi m vo l unt ar i l y und er the FS A o r w i th se nsi ti vi ty to the F SA’s r educed d i stincti on be twe ens en te nc es i nv o l vingc r ac ka nd those inv o l ving pow der c oc ain e. The di str i ct c ourtco rr ectly decl ined to ap p lythe F S A atBr o wn’ s se nt en cing . W e fi nd no c o mpe l l i ngg r o un ds t o r e man d o n thi s i s sue. C f. U nitedN o. 10

- 3441 5

B r o w n c l a i m s t h a tw e sh o u l d r e v i e w t h e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s 1 dec i s i on de n o v o b e c a u s e h e h a d n o c h a n c e t o o b j e c tt o the ru l i ng un t i l i twas al re ady e nt er ed. He c i tes Fe der al Rul e of Cri m i nalProce dure 51 ( a) , whi c h pr ovi des that“[ e] xc ept i ons to ruli ngs or orders of the court are unn ece ss ary. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 51 ( a). A n “ ex c ept i on” oc c ur s whena l i t i gan tc om pl ai ns (co n tin u ed ...) State s v . Va nce, N o. 10

- 3245 , 20 11 W L 44360 04, at* 2- 3 ( 7th C ir. Sept . 2 6, 2011 ) (el ectin g not to revisit this Cou rt’s ho l di ng s i n Fish erand Ho l c o mb , a s wel la s fi ndi ngno c o mp e l l i n gr e a s o n t o r e v e r s e a r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e i mp osed i n ac cord an ce w ith tho se hold ings).

B . C o n s i d e ri n gt h e $ 3 0 0 F i n e s Ma n d a t o ryMi n i mu ms W as Erro r. W he n e xpl aini ng its d ec i si o n t o i m po se a $ 30 0 fi ne f orea ch ofBro w n’s thr ee counts ofco nvi cti on, the di str i ct co ur t ex pl aine d th at th er e was “a m an dat ory m i ni m um fi ne [ o f ] $ 30 0 o n e ach c ou nt . ” I t al so e xpl aine d tha t th e paym ent w as owed i m m edi ate l y. The part i es agr ee that Bro wn’ s co nv i ct i o ns c ar r i ed no mandat o r y min i m um fi ne a m o unt s. Acco r di ng l y, Br o wn as k s forar emand to cor re ct the m i sta ke. Bec au s e B r o wnn e i th e ro bj e c t e d t o n o rma d e a n a r g um en t ab o ut th e fi ne s th e di st r i ct co ur t i m po sed at th e tim e, w e re vie w th eir im p os i t i o n fo r p lain err or . See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. R iley, 4 93 F. 3d 803, 81 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( apply in g plain er ro r re vi ew to ar gum ents f or fei ted at sente nci ng r ega rdi ng the im posi ti on o ffi nes)
. U nd er 16 N o. 10

- 3441

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 a b o u t a ju d ic ia l d ec isi o n aft er it h a s b e e n m a d e. S ee Un i te d S t a tes v . B ar tlett, 567 F. 3d 901, 910 ( 7th Cir
. 2009)
. H e further referenc es R u le 5 1 ( b), w hich prov ides that“[ i] fa party does notha ve an o ppor t uni t y t o o bj ec tt o a r ul i ng o r or der, the a b s e n ce o f an o b jec tio n d o es n o t la te r p reju d ic e t h a t p a rt y .” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 51 (b). W e d isag ree. R u le 51 (a ) ap p lies to issues th at w ere ra ise d b efo r e a j u d ic ia l ru lin g . S ee B ar tlett, 567 F. 3 d a t9 1 0
. W e h a ve furthe r e x pl a i ne d tha tRul e 5 1 ( b) requir es l it igants s eeking t o prese rve i ss ues not rai se d b ef ore a j udi c i al dec i s i on t o r ai s e thos e i s s ues “whe n the c our tr ul i ng o r o rd er i s m ade or sought. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P. 5 1 (b ); seeal so B ar tlett, 56 7 F .3d at 910 ( “W he n the jud g e sur p rises cou nsel, it is f ar bett er t o airand resol ve the m att er i n the dist ri ctcourt than t o bypa s s ava i l abl e oppor t uni t ies f or c or re c t i on and s ave the iss u e fo r a p p ea l.” ). pla i n er ro r re vi ew , we m u st deter m i ne “( 1) thater ro r o c c u r r e d ; ( 2 ) th a t th e e r r o r wa s p l a i n ; a n d ( 3 ) th a t th e er ro r affecte d the defen d ant’ s s ubstanti alr i ghts. ” U nited St at e s v. Le upke, 49 5 F
. 3d 443, 44 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( i nter nal q u ot at ion m ar ks an d cit at ion s o m itt ed ). I f th es e c r i t er ia ar e m et, we m ay re ver se. A n err or is “p lain ” if it is “ c lea r” or “ ob vio u s.” U nited Stat e s v. O l ano , 50 7 U.S
. 72 5, 73 4 ( 1993 )
. Fur ther, defen d an ts be ar th e b u r d e n of d em on st ra tin g th atth eir su bsta nt ialri gh ts w ere affecte d by the error, w hich gene ral l y re quir es showing prej ud i ce: the er ro r “m u st h ave affe c te d th e o u tc om e o f th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro c ee d in gs .” O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S. at 7 34 ; s e eal s o L e upke, 49 5 F
. 3d at 450- 51. F i na l l y, the S upr eme Co ur t ha s ex pl aine d that when aN o. 10

- 3441 7 p l a i n e r r o r a ffe c t s th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h ts , we s ho ul d i nv o k e o ur di s c r e t i o n t o r e man d a c a s e “ i n thos e c irc u m st an c es in w h ich a m isc ar ria ge of j u st ice w ou ld othe rwis e r esul t, ” a nd i t defi nes “ m i scar ri age o fj usti ce” as a n er ro r that “se ri ousl y a ffect[ s] the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty orpubli c r eputati on o fj ud i ci alp ro c eedi ngs. ” O l ano , 50 7 U. S
. a t 73 6 ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n mar k s an d c i ta ti o ns om itt ed ); s e ea l s o Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Ne wm an , 96 5 F
. 2d 206, 213 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92)
. W e fi nd pl ai n er ro r i n thi s ca se. Brown w as not subj ect to a m andator y m i ni m um fi ne, and the di str i ct c ourter re d i n sta ti ng o ther w i se. Brown pl ed gui l ty to thre e co unts o fvi ol ating 21 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. He wa s s e nt e nc e d u nd e r2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 (b )(1) (B ) for C ou n t I a n d § 84 1(b )(1) (C ) for C ou n ts II an d I I I
. Nei th ero f th o se s ta tu te s no rthe g en er alfi ne statu te, 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 3571-357 4, im p ose a m an d atory m i ni m um fi ne. T he Sente nc ing G uid eli ne s p r o v id e tha t “[t]he cou rt sh al l im p ose a fi ne i n a l lc as es , e xc eptwher e th e defe nd ant e stabl i shes that he i s u nabl e t o pay and i s no t li kely to becom e able to p ay an y fine , ” U
. S. S. G
. § 5E 1.2( a), an d fur th ers ta te s th at, unde rtho se c i r cumst an ces , “ th e c o ur tma y i mpo s e a l e s s e rfi ne o rwa i v e the fi ne , ” U. S
. S
. G. § 5 E1. 2( e)
. A ccor dingly, we have expla i ned that “cr i m i nal fi ne s ar e di sc r et i o na r y, a nd s en te nc i ngc o urt s m us t co nsi der abi l i ty to pay w hen deter m i ni ng wh etherto im p os e a n y fin e a t a ll.” U n it ed States v. Ellis , 52 2 F
. 3d 737, 739 (7th C ir. 2008). Face d w i th an ad vi sory guidel i ne fi ne r ange of$2 0, 000 to $8, 000, 000, the prese ntenci ng rep or t co ncl ud ed that8 N o. 10

- 3441 Br o wn di d no t “h av e th e ab i l i tyt o p ay a fi ne wi th i n the gui del i ne r ange nordoes he ha ve the abi l i ty to p ay a fi ne i m m edi at ely. ” F urther, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s S tat em ent o fReas ons sta tes the f ol l owing: “[ f ] i ne waiv ed or be l o w the g ui del i ne r an g e be ca us e o fi nabi l i tyt o pa y, ” an d al so tha t “[ t] he c o ur t ha s depa r te d do wnw ar d o n the fin e d ue to the defe nd ant’ s inabi l i ty to pay. ” W e m ay con side r these com m en ts to interp ret the district cou rt’s or alpro nouncem ents at se ntenci ng. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743 , 747 (7th C ir. 2010). O n a correc t un d erstan d ing of t he l aw , Brow n’s i nabi l i ty to pay per m i tte d the di str i ct c ourtto no t im po se a fi ne at all
. Yet, t h e St ate m ent o fReas ons i nd i cate s that the di strict cour t e rr oneo usl y b el i eve d that the $3 00 fi nes were m andator y m i ni m um s. Thi s m i sta ke ofl aw i m pli cate d Brow n’s subst anti alr i ghts beca use i t di ctat ed th e o ut come o fhi s se nt en cing

— the di str i ct c ourtvi ew ed its elf a s o b liga te d to im p os e t h e fin es . See M cM ath , 55 9 F.3 d at66 3 n .2 (n ot in g th atm i s t ak es of law ty p ica lly sa tis fy p lain err or an d m er it re ve rs al); U ni t e d St at e s v. Fl ore s - San doval, 9 4 F
. 3d 34 6, 3 51 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) ( ex pl aini ng that, i n the conte xt o fi m posi ng fines , an e rr or p rej u d ice s t h e d efe n d an t’s su b st an tia l righ ts if it like ly w oul d have a ffecte d the am ount o fthe fi ne)
. W e m ay re m an d to co rre c t t h is m ist ak e. C f. U ni t ed Stat e s v. Jum ah, 59 9 F .3d 79 9, 81 3 (7 th C ir. 2 01 0) (fin d in g th atp lain er ro r ex ist s a n d rem an d is p ro p er w h en a se n te n c e is bas e d o n a m iscalculation of the gu idelines ran ge); G arre tt, 528 F .3d at52 9- 30 ( sam e) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. O rt iz , 61 3 F
. 3d 550, 55 4 ( 5th Ci r. 20 10) ( re m an ding f or re sente nci ng wh en a dist ri ct c ourti m posed a sente nceN o. 10

- 3441 9 that i t be l i eve d w as a m an dator y m i ni m um , but w hi ch ex ceed ed th e a ctu al m an d atory m inim um f or the offense).

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego in g rea sons, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o f the di s t r i c tc o ur tn o tt o a pp l y the F a i rS e nt e nc i ngAct du ring Bro w n ’s sentenci ng, but w e V ACATE its im p os it i o n o fh i s fi ne s a nd R EMA ND f o r reasse ss m en t co nsi st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

10- 18- 11