[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-11808

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENJAMIN TILLMAN, 

a.k.a. Little Bean,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:96-cr-00058-RV-MD-4

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-11808 Date Filed: 04/11/2022 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-11808

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Tillman, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion to cease the imposition of the 

$5,000 fine imposed at sentencing. Tillman asserts the district 

court erred in denying his motion without explanation and that his 

fine was imposed in violation of the Mandatory Victim Restitution 

Act of 1996 (MVRA),1 multiple federal statutes, and the Eighth 

Amendment. After review,2 we affirm.

Under the MVRA, for any defendant convicted after April 

24, 1996, their liability “to pay a fine shall terminate the later of 

20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years after the release 

from imprisonment of the person fined, or upon the death of the 

individual fined.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b).

The MVRA applies to Tillman because he was convicted after April 24, 1996, but he is not entitled to termination of his fine 

under the MVRA. Because the MVRA allows termination of a fine 

after the later of 20 years from the judgment or 20 years from release from imprisonment, Tillman’s fine would terminate 20 years 

1 Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).

2We review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of 

law de novo. United States v. Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2000).

USCA11 Case: 21-11808 Date Filed: 04/11/2022 Page: 2 of 4
21-11808 Opinion of the Court 3

after his release, as that is the later date. As such, his fine will not 

terminate until July 2040—20 years from his release.

While Tillman cites to multiple other statutes and to the 

Eighth Amendment, he fails to cite to any law that would entitle 

him to terminate or reduce the $5,000 fine imposed against him. 

Tillman cites to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d), but this section does not provide grounds for Tillman to move the district court to reduce or 

terminate his $5,000 fine, as it only provides categories and 

amounts of fines that district courts may impose. He also cites to 

18 U.S.C. § 3612 and quotes subsection (f)(3), which applies only to 

interest on fines or restitution and allows district courts to modify

the interest on fines. Tillman does not owe interest on his fine, so 

this statute does not apply.

Next, Tillman relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3572(c)(1), which provides that a fine may be modified or remitted under section 3573, 

but section 3573 allows the government to petition for modification or remission of a fine—not the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3573. 

Tillman also cites to 18 U.S.C. § 3572(c)(3), which states that a fine 

may be appealed and modified under section 3742. But section 

3742 allows for the defendant to appeal the imposition of a fine 

within a final sentence if that fine was greater than the maximum 

established in the guideline range. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(3). According to the PSI, Tillman’s maximum fine under the guidelines was 

$8,000,000, so his $5,000 fine does not exceed the guideline maximum and his reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3572 is without merit.

USCA11 Case: 21-11808 Date Filed: 04/11/2022 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-11808

Finally, Tillman cites to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive fines. U.S. 

Const. amend. VIII. Under the Eighth Amendment, “a punitive 

forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant’s offense.” United States v. 

Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998). Because the $5,000 fine imposed on Tillman was significantly less than the $25,000 minimum 

provided in the guideline according to the PSI, Tillman’s argument 

his fine was excessive is without merit. Id. 

Tillman has failed to show he was entitled to termination 

or reduction of his $5,000 fine. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-11808 Date Filed: 04/11/2022 Page: 4 of 4