FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 8, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11940 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 07 -C R -W C O -2 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S T E V E W A D E L A M B E R T , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 8, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S t eve W ade L am bertappeal s the $1 , 00 0 fi ne i m po se d as partof hi s t ot alL ambert wa s repre sente d b y

a fe deral de fender, bo th in th e di stri c t c ourt and on a pp e al. 1 2 s e n te n c e f

o rille g a lly p o s s e s s in g af ir e a rm , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) . W e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D L a m b e r t p le d g u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm a f te rp r e v io u s ly havi ng been conv i ct ed of a f el on y, i n v i ol at i on of § 9 22 (g). W hen the po l i ce 1 s e a r c he d L a m be r t ’ s hous e , f ol l ow i ng a n a l t e r c a t i on be tw e e n L a m be r ta nd a n e ig h b o r , th e y lo c a te d 1 0 g u n s a n d 1 ,0 9 9 r o u n d s o f a m m u n itio n . W i th at ot a l of

f e ns e l e ve l of

15, a nd ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I , the pr oba t i on of

f i c e rc a l c ul a t e d a n a dvi s ory S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 18 t o 24 m on ths of i m pri sonm entand a fi ne ra ng e of $4, 00 0 t o $ 40 , 00 0. H i s P re se nt ence In v est i g at i o n R ep o rt(“ P S I”) sh o w s th at(1 ) L am b ertw as co m p l et el y d i sab l ed as a r e s ul tof a n a c c i de nti n 1985, a nd ( 2) the S oc i a l S e c ur i ty A dm i ni s tr a t i on s how e d no F I C A e a rni ngs f

orhi m f orthe y e a r s 1993 t o 1997 a nd 1999 t o 2006. I n 1998, L a m be rt ’ s e a rni ngs t ot a l e d $1, 864. 38. L a m be r t( 1) f i l e d f orbankrupt c y i n 1998, ( 2) ha d no out s t a ndi ng de bt s , a nd ( 3) ha d tw o a s s e t s , hi s truc k a nd the l a nd on w hi ch he l i ved, w hi ch t og ether w er e w orth $ 40 , 00 0. L am bertprov i ded in f o rm a tio n s h o w in g th a t h is m o n th ly in c o m e f r o m S o c ia l S e c u r ity d is ab ility be ne f i t s a nd f ood s t a m ps w a s $1, 279, buthe ha d ane ga t i ve m onthl y c a s h f l ow of3

$1 11 . T he prob at i on offi ce r c on cl ud ed thati tw as un l i kel y thatL am bertcoul d p ay af in e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e , b u t th a t h e p o s s ib ly c o u ld m a k e p a y m e n ts th r o u g h th e B u r e au o f

P r i s o n s ’ I n m a t e F i n a n c i a l R e s p o n s i b i l i ty P r o g r a m ( “ B OP P r ogr a m ” ) . T he pr oba t i on of f i c e rr e c om m e nde d as e nt e nc e of 21 m onths of im p r is o n m e n t a n d af

in e o f $ 1 ,0 0 0 . A tse nt enci ng , the di stri ctj ud ge adop t ed the P S I, and L am bert ' s c ou nsel r e q u e s te d as e n te n c e b e lo w th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s r a n g e b e c au s e o f L a m b e r t's phy s i c a l di s abi l i ty . T he j udge s e nt e nc e d L a m be r tt o 24 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nt a nd i m pos e d a$1, 000 f i ne , not i ng tha t“ [ t ] he de f e nda ntm a y m a ke pa y m e nt s f r om any w ages he m ayea rn, i f abl e t o d o so, i n p ri son. ” R 5 at14 . L am bert ’ s c ou nsel obj e c t e d t o the f

i ne ba s e d on L a m be r t ' s i nabi l i ty t o pa y af i ne a nd t o D N A t e s t i ng bei ng a c on di t i on of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se . A l tho ug h the obj ec t i on t o the fi ne w as no texpl i ci t l y a dd re ss ed, the j ud ge apparent l y overrul ed i tw hen i tov errul ed L a m b e rt’s o b

je c tio n to th e D N A te s tin g a s ac o n d itio n o f h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . I d . a t 1 5 - 1 6 . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , L am bertar gu es thatthe di stri ctj ud ge abused hi s di sc re t i on w hen h e i m p o s e d a$ 1 , 0 0 0 f

i n e b e c au s e L a m b e r td i d n o th a v e th e ab i l i ty t o p a y i t . He as se rt s that(1) he has been di sabl ed si nce 198 5, (2) s i nce thatt i m e, hi s s ol e s ou rc e4

o f in c o m e , w ith o n e e x c e p tio n , h a s b e e n S o c ia l S e c u r ity b e n e f its , ( 3 ) h is o n ly a s s e t s a r e hi s truc k a nd hi s hom e , ( 4) a f t e re xpe ns e s , he ha s am onthl y de f i c i tof $111, a nd ( 5) he i s r e pr e s e nt e d by af e de r a l de f

e nde r . A c c or di ngl y , he c ont e nds th ath e d o es n o th av e th e p resen tab i l i ty t o p ay th e fi n e. B ecau se o f h i s d i sab i l i ty, he ar gu es thathe w i l l be un abl e t o p aythe fi ne, even un der apaym entsc hedu l e, be c aus e he w i l l be unabl e t o pe r f orm m a nua l l abori n pr i s on t o c ontr i but e t o the f in e . H e al so assert s th atth e fi n e w i l l i m p o se a b u rd en o n h i s fam i l y, b ecau se the i rs ol e m e a ns of

s uppor ta r e hi s S oc i a l S e c ur i ty be ne f i t s , w hi c h w i l l be s us pe nde d w hi l e he i s i m pr i s one d. C i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R ow l a nd, 906 F . 2d 621 ( 11th C i r . 1990) , he a r gue s tha t , unde rthe s e f a c t s , i tw a s a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on f

or the j udge t o ha ve i m pos e d af i ne . F i na l l y , he c ont e nds ( 1) tha tthe di s tr i c tj udge e rr e d w h e n h e f

a ile d to c o n s id e rth e U .S .S .G . § 5 E 1 .2 ( N o v . 2 0 0 5 ) f a c to r s in i m pos i ng hi s f

i ne , a nd ( 2) tha tthe r e w a s no f a c tua l s uppor tf

orthe i m pos i t i on of the fi ne. W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s i m po si t i on of a f i ne for c l ear e rr or. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M c G ui nne s s , 451 F . 3d 1302, 1307 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . “ ' T he c our ts ha l l i m pos e af

i ne i n a l l c a s e s , e xc e ptw he r e the de f e nda nte s t abl i s he s tha the i s unabl e t o pa y a nd i s notl i ke l y t o be c om e abl e t o pa y a ny f i ne [ ] e ve n w i th the5

us e of ar e a s onabl e i ns t a l l m e nts c he dul e . ' [ T he ] [ d] e f e nda ntha s the bur de n of prov i ng i nabi l i ty t o p ay . ” I d. (quo t i ng U . S . S . G . §§ 5E 1. 2(a) , (e )( 1)). “W h e n af

in e is f o u n d to b e ap p r o p r ia te , th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t m u s t ‘r e f e rto the t abl e s ett i ng am ou nt s of f i nes f or di ff er entoffe nse l evel s, then con si der s even l i s t e d f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng a ny pe r t i ne nte qui t abl e c onc e rns , i n de c i di ng the a m ountof the f i ne t o i m pos e w i thi n the r a nge . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a s ke tt , 950 F . 2d 705, 709 (11th C i r. 19 92 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he A pp l i ca t i on N ot es t o § 5E 1. 2 st at e that

“ the fa ctthata def

endanti s r epre se nt ed by (or w as det erm i ned el i gi bl e f or) as si gn ed coun se l [i s a ] si gn i fi ca nti nd i ca t or[ ] of pres enti nabi l i ty t o p ayany f i ne. I n c onj unc t i on w i th othe rf a c t or s , [ i t ] m a y a l s o i ndi c a t e tha tthe de f e nda nti s not l i k e l y t o b e c o m e ab l e t o p a y a n y f i n e . ” U. S . S . G. § 5 E 1 . 2 c m t . n . 3 . I n P a s k e tt , we va c a t e d a$100, 000 f

i ne a nd c onc l ude d tha tthe r e c or d w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o a l l ow r e v ie w w h e n th e d is tr ic t ju d g e f a ile d to d is c u s s e x p lic itly th e § 5 E 1 .2 f a c to r s . P a s ke tt , 950 F . 2d a t709. B e c au s e th is c a s e p r e s e n ts ac lo s e q u e s tio n , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d id n o t c le a r ly e rri n i m pos i ng the $1, 000 f i ne . F i r s t , L a m be r tdi d notr a i s e a ny obj e c t i ons t o the f i ne , ora ny a r gum e nt s c onc e rni ng hi s i nabi l i ty t o pa y i t , unt i l a f t e rthe j udge i m po se d h i s f

i ne. R 5 at2-15 . H e s t at ed on l y thathe di d n othave the abi l i ty t o p ay the f i ne . I d. a t15. A l though the r e w a s i nf orm a t i on r e ga r di ng hi s f i na nc i a l s t a tus6

in h is P S I , L a m b e r t d id n o t b r in g th is in f o rm a tio n to th e c o u r t’s a tte n tio n . L am bert ’ s gener al obj ec t i on , un supp ort ed by any proffe re d fac t s or e vi dence, w as i n su ffi ci en tt o m eeth i s b u rd en t o p ro v e h i s i n ab i l i ty t o p ay th e fi n e. M cG u i n n ess, 451 F . 3d a t1307. S ec on d, al tho ug h i tappears thatthe di stri ctj ud ge i m pl i ci t l y overrul ed L am bert ’ s obj ec t i on t o the fi ne, he di d n otdi sc uss the fi ne atal l , even aft er L a m b e rt o b

je c te d to it. I d . a t 1 5 . W e h a v e h e ld th a t, w h e n ad is tr ic t ju d g e f a ils to d is c u s s e x p lic itly th e § 5 E 1 .2 f a c to r s , w e a r e r e q u ir e d to r e m a n d f o rr e s e n te n c in g . S ee P ask ett , 9 5 0 F . 2 d at7 0 9 . A tsen t en ci n g , th e d i stri ctj u d g e n o t ed th atL am b ert ' s f in e c o u ld b e p a id in a c c o r d a n c e w ith th e B O P P r o g r a m , if h e w e r e ab le to w o rkin pr i s on, w hi c h i ndi c a t e s tha tthe j udge ha d c ons i de r e d L a m be r t ’ s di s abi l i ty w he n he im p o s e d th e f

in e . R 5 a t 1 4 . T h ir d , th e r e a r e c o n f

lic tin g f a c ts in th e r e c o r d c o n c e rn in g L a m b e r t’s ab ility t o p aythe fi ne. T he un di sput ed fa ct s c on t ai ned i n the P S I s ho w that(1) L am bert has bee n d i sabl ed si nce 198 5, (2) hi s f am i l y’ s s ol e m eans of supp ortar e the S oci al S e c u r ity b e n e f

its th a t h e a n d h is s o n c o lle c t, ( 3 ) h is s o le a s s e ts , c o lle c tiv e ly w o r th $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 , a r e h is tru c ka n d th e la n d o n w h ic h h e liv e s , a n d ( 4 ) h e in c u r s am o n th ly d efi ci to f $ 1 1 1 . T h e reco rd al so sh o w s th ath e h as atl easto n e o th er asset , n am el y, the gu ns thatl ed t o h i s c ri m e i n thi s c as e. L am bertpo ss es se d 1 0 fi re arm s and ov er7

1 ,0 0 0 r o u n d s o f

a m m u n itio n . L a m b e r t c ite s R o w la n d f o rth e p r o p o s itio n th a t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ab u s e d h is di s c r e t i on be c aus e the e vi de nc e doe s nots uppor tthe f i ne i m pos e d. I n R ow l a nd, the c onvi c t e d de f

e nda ntha d be e n a rr e s t e d w he n he tr i e d t o m a ke al a r ge m a r i j ua na p u r c h a s e f

r o m u n d e r c o v e rl a w e n f o r c e m e n ta g e n t s . R o wl a n d , 9 0 6 F . 2 d a t6 2 2 . At the t i m e w hen h e w as arre st ed, he had $ 35 , 00 0 i n cas h, w hi ch the go vernm entl at er s e i z e d, a nd hi s P S I i ndi c a t e d tha the e a rne d onl y $100 t o $125 aw e e k, ha d $8, 000 i n a s s e t s , a nd ha d c hi l d s uppor tobl i ga t i ons . I d. a t622, 624. R e a s oni ng tha tthe defe nd anthad $ 35 , 00 0 w hen h e w as arre st ed, and, there fore , had u nd i sc l osed a s s e ts th a t c o u ld b e u s e d to p a y th e f in e , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e im p o s e d a$ 5 0 ,0 0 0 f in e . I d. a t623. W e va c a t e d the f i ne a nd he l d tha ti tw a s notr e a s onabl y s uppor t e d by pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e , be c aus e the r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha tR ow l a nd ow ne d the $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 . I d . a t 6 2 4 . R o w la n d , h o w e v e r , is d is tin g u is h ab le f r o m th is c a s e . F ir s t, L a m be rtr e c e i ve d a$1, 000 f i ne , nota$50, 000 f

i ne , w hi c h he i s m or e l i ke l y t o be ab le to p a y , e v e n w ith h is lim ite d f in a n c ia l r e s o u r c e s . S e c o n d , L a m b e r t ap p a r e n tly d id h a v e u n d is c lo s e d a s s e ts , n a m e ly , th e f ir e a rm s . B e c aus e L a m be r tpr e s e nt e d no f a c t s t o the s e nt e nc i ng j udge s how i ng tha the w a s u n ab le to p a y th e f

in e , a n d th e r e is s o m e e v id e n c e th a t h e h a d a s s e ts th a t c o u ld be us e d t o pa y i t , L a m be r tf a i l e d t o m e e thi s bur de n of pr ovi ng tha the c oul d not8

p a y th e f in e . M c G u in n e s s , 4 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 7 . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e d id no tcl ea rl y e rri n i m po si ng the fi ne. I I I . CONCL US I ON L a m b e r t h a s ap p e a le d th e $ 1 ,0 0 0 - f in e p o r tio n o f

h is s e n te n c e f

o llo w in g h is pl e at o § 922( g) , pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm a f t e rpr e vi ous l y ha vi ng be e n c onvi c t e d of a f el on y. B ec ause he di d n otprov e thathe w as un abl e t o p aythe fi ne and there w a s s om e e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d tha the ha d a s s e t s tha tc oul d be us e d t o pa y i t , the di s tr i c tj udge di d notc l e a r l y e rri n i m pos i ng hi s f i ne . T he r e f

or e , the i m pos i t i on of L am b ert ' s $ 1 , 0 0 0 fi n e i s AF F I RME D.