1The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3300

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Fransisco Silva-Cintora, also known *

as Pancho, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 1, 2001

 Filed: February 7, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Fransisco Silva-Cintora pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Denying an

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, the district court1 imposed a sentence of 135

months imprisonment, 4 years supervised release, and a $5,000 fine. On appeal SilvaCintora challenges the denial of the reduction and imposition of the fine, which he
-2-

argues he has little chance of paying because he is indigent and will be deported upon

his release from prison. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in denying the acceptance-of-responsibility

reduction, given its crediting of two law enforcement officers’ testimony--supported by

intercepted phone conversations--that Silva-Cintora had supplied drugs to two coconspirators over several months, and its belief that he had minimized his involvement

when he testified he had engaged in only one minor transaction. See United States v.

Yell, 18 F.3d 581, 583 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review; whether defendant has

accepted responsibility is factual question which depends largely on credibility

assessments by sentencing court); United States v. Ngo, 132 F.3d 1231, 1233 (8th Cir.

1997) (affirming denial of reduction where, inter alia, defendant consciously attempted

to mislead and minimize his involvement in offense; noting district court had

opportunity to observe defendant’s demeanor). 

Nor did the district court err in imposing the fine. Silva-Cintora did not show

that he was unable to pay the fine or unlikely to become able to pay it, see U.S.S.G.

§ 5E1.2(a), and the court clearly considered his ability to pay the fine in light of his

earning capacity, as well as the need to deprive him of illegally obtained gains, see 18

U.S.C. § 3572. In addition, the court imposed the fine with the knowledge that SilvaCintora would likely be deported. See 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b) (liability to pay fine

terminates upon later of 20 years from entry of judgment or 20 years after release from

prison, or upon death of individual fined); United States v. Thompson, 227 F.3d 43, 46-

47 (2d. Cir. 2000) (rejecting defendant’s argument that he would never be able to pay

fine before his deportation upon release from prison; nothing in statute or Guidelines

suggests defendants cannot pay fine after being deported, and court did not err in

concluding defendant could earn enough money, during and after his 120-month prison

term, to pay $5,000 fine). 

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.