IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11088

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARQUIS KONRAD STREATY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-59-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Marquis Konrad Streaty appeals the $5,000 

special assessment imposed by the district court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3014(a). Streaty argues that the district court clearly erred in determining 

that he was “non-indigent” for purposes of § 3014(a) based, in part, on his 

401(k) retirement account with a balance of $17,000. He also complains about 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11088 Document: 00514607184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2018
No. 17-11088

2

the “conclusory manner” in which the court determined that he was nonindigent and claims that the finding is not supported by the record.

The district court’s determination of whether Streaty is indigent for 

purposes of the special assessment under § 3014(a) is an issue of fact that this 

court reviews for clear error. See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 229 

(5th Cir. 2012). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is 

plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Pacheco-Alvarado, 

782 F.3d 213, 220 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

This court has yet to articulate a test for determining whether a 

defendant is indigent for purposes of § 3014. As such, this court applies the 

standard that otherwise applies to fines assessed in criminal cases. Under that 

standard, “[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving his inability to pay a 

fine, and may rely upon the [presentence report] to establish his inability to 

pay.” United States v. Magnuson, 307 F.3d 333, 335 (5th Cir. 2002).

Streaty has not satisfied his burden. His argument that he is unable to 

pay the $5,000 special assessment is based on his own ignorance regarding the 

withdrawal provisions regarding his $17,000 retirement account. He cannot 

feign ignorance regarding the terms of his own asset and satisfy his burden of 

proving that he is unable to pay the special assessment. Thus, Streaty has not 

shown that the district court clearly erred when it considered the $17,000 

balance in his 401(k) retirement account in determining that he was nonindigent for purposes of § 3014(a). See Harris, 702 F.3d at 229.

To the extent that Streaty complains about the district court’s failure to 

make an express finding that he was non-indigent prior to imposing the special 

assessment under § 3014(a), the statute does not require such a finding. At 

sentencing, the court adopted the presentence report and its addendum, 

 Case: 17-11088 Document: 00514607184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2018
No. 17-11088

3

including the representations regarding Streaty’s financial worth, and 

implicitly found that he was non-indigent. The court’s implicit finding of fact 

in this regard is sufficient under this court’s precedent. See United States v. 

Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 388 F.3d 466, 468 n.8 (5th Cir. 2004).

Streaty further argues that the district court’s implicit determination 

that he was non-indigent for purposes of the § 3014(a) special assessment is 

not supported by the record given the court’s explicit finding that he did not 

have the financial resources or future earning capacity to pay a fine. As the 

Government notes, there is nothing inherently contradictory about finding 

that Streaty could pay a $5,000 special assessment but could not pay the 

Guidelines fine range for his offense, which ranged from $30,000 to $250,000.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-11088 Document: 00514607184 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/20/2018