09 - 41 14 - cr U n ite d S ta te s v . D a v is UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HAV E P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M EN T F I LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E LE CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a s tate dterm o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n dC irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 6 day of O ct ober , tw o thous and t en. th P RES ENT : ROGER J . M I NER,

BARRINGTON D . P ARKER, R E E N A R A G G I,

C i r cui tJudges .

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appellee , v. N o. 09- 4114- cr C H R IS T O P H E R L IS T O N D A V IS , a .k .a R obertA l an Sm i th, D ef endant

-Appellant .

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ F O R A P P E L L A N T : G e o rg e B a ir d , A s s is ta n t F e d e ra l P ub lic D e fe n d e r, f or A l exande r B uni n, Feder al Publ i c D ef ender , A l bany, N ew Y ork. F O R A P P E L L E E : E liza b e th S . R ik e r, A ss ista n t U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y (E liza b e th A . H o rs m a n , A s s is ta n t U n ite dS ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ),f or R icha rd S . H artun ian, U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y for the N o rth ern D i s tr i ctof

N ew Y ork, Syr acus e, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l f rom th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (G le n n T . S u d d ab y , Judge ).2

UP ON DUE CONS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entent er ed on O ct ober1, 2009, i s AF F I RMED . D ef endantC hr i s t opherL i s t on D avi s i s pr es ent l y i ncar cer at ed, s ervi ng c oncurr ent57- m onth pr i s on t erm s i m pos ed af t era gui l ty pl ea t o one c ountof a tt empt ed i l l egalr eentry af t er deport at i on s ubs equentt o an aggr avat ed f el ony convi ct i on, see 8 U . S. C . § 1326(a ) - ( b) , and o n e c o u n t o f u s in g a fr a u du le n tly o b ta in e dp a s s p o rt , s e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 2 . D a v is ap p e a ls f r o m o n l y th a tp a rto f

h i s j u d g me n to f

c o n v i c t i o n i mp o s i n g a$ 7 , 5 0 0 f i n e . W e r e v i e w a s ent ence , i ncl udi ng a f i ne, for r easonabl enes s , a s t andar d aki n t o r evi ew f orabus e of di s cr et i on. See K i m br ough v. U ni t ed S t at es , 552 U . S. 85, 90- 91 ( 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 55 0 F. 3d 180, 187- 88 & n. 5 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( en banc ) . I n doi ng s o, w e as s um e the p a rties ’ fa m ili a rity w ith th e fa c ts a n dre c o rd o f p rio r p ro c e e d in g s, w h ich w e re fe re n c e o n ly a s n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i rm. 1. A bi l i ty t o Pay D avi s does notdi s put e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s author i ty t o i m pos e a f i ne f orthe cr i m es of convi ct i on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ; 18 U . S. C . § 3571( a) . H e f urtheracknow l edges thatthe chall eng ed fi ne r epr es ent s the bott om of the appl i cabl e Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of $ 7 ,5 0 0 to $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 . D a v is m a in tain s th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e dp ro c e du ra l erro r in fi n d in g , c o n tr a ry to th e p re s e n te n c e re p o rt(“ P S R ” ), th a t h e w a s ab le to p a y s u c h afi n e . W e r evi ew thi s f

actual f i ndi ng f orcl earerr or . See U ni t ed St at es v. A w an, 607 F. 3d 306, 312 ( 2d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ); U n ite dS ta te s v . C a v e ra , 5 5 0 F .3 da t 1 9 0 .U ni t ed St at es v. G onzal ez, 541 F. 3d 1250 ( 11th Ci r . 2008) , r el i ed on by D avis , 1 w arr ant s no di f

f er entconclus i on. T her e, the El eventh C i r cui tvaca t ed a $250, 000 f i ne, s ever al m ul t i ples above the $60, 000 t op of the G ui del i nes r ange, i m pos ed w i thout expl anat i on on a def

endantw ho m the pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eporti ndi cat ed coul d not pay both a f

i ne and mandat ory r es t i tut i on of $116, 300. See i d. at1256. B y contr as t , the d istri ct co u rthe re m ad e rea so n ab le f ind ing s reg ard ing D av is’ s asse ts an dcap ac ity for future e a rn in g s b e fo re im p o sin g a fin e a t th e b o tto m o f th e ap p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . O n th is r ecor d, w e i dent i f

y no def i ci ency of

expl anat i on r equi r i ng rem and . S ee U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at190. 3 T he di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatD avi s coul d af f or d t o pay a fi ne becaus e he ( 1) j oi nt l y ow ned an une ncumber ed home w orth $65, 000; (2) ow ned tw o vehi cl es w orth $3, 500 a n d$ 6 ,0 0 0 ; a n d ( 3 ) w a s ab le to “ b e p ro du c tiv e a n dp ro du c e m o n e y to p a y afi n e .” S e n te n c in g T r. a t 1 8 . W e id e n tify n o c lea r e rro r in th is d e term in a tio n . A lth o u g h D a v is ar gues thatthe governm enterr ed i n as s ert i ng thathe w oul d be el i gi bl e f orpr i s on empl oym ent , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notre l y on thi s re pr es ent at i on i n m aki ng i t s ow n f i ndi ng. Further , the pot ent i aldi f f i cul ty i n l i qui dat i ng D avi s ’ s pr operty i n J amai ca, w hi ch i nf orm ed the P S R ’s reco m m en d ati o n ag ains t i m p o sit ion o f a fine, didn o t prec lud e the d istri ct co u rt f r om f i ndi ng thatD avi s had as s et s thathe coul d dr aw on t o pay a f i ne. 1 2. R ef

er ence t o A ppoi nt ed C ouns el D a v is a ss e rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e dfu rth e r p ro c e du ra l e rro r b y tre a tin g h is re p re se n tatio n b y ap p o in ted c o u n s e l a s afa c to r w e ig h in g in fa v o r o f, ra th e r th a n a g a in st, i m pos i t i on of

a f i ne. S ee U . S. S. G . § 5E 1. 2 cm t . n. 3 ( s t at i ng thatdef endant ’ s r epr es ent at i on by as s i gned couns el i s gener al l y a s i gni f i cantf act orw ei ghing ag ai ns tf i ne) . W e ar e not per s uaded. A l though di s tr i ctcourt s ar e no l ongerbound t o f ol l ow the G ui del i nes or4

G ui de l i ne s c omm e nt a ry wi th whi c h the y d i s a gr e e , s e e U ni t e d St a t e s v. K i mbr ou gh , 55 2 U. S. at101, w e do not , i n f

act , under s t and the di s tr i ctcourtt o have e xpr es s ed any c at egor i cal di s agr eementw i th the ci t ed comm ent ary i n thi s cas e. I n cont ext , the cha l l enged s t at ement ap p e a rs o n ly to e x p lain th a t, inlig h t o f o th e r in d ica to rs th a t D a v is h a ds ig n ifica n t as se ts w ith w hi ch t o pay a f

i ne, the di s tr i ctcourtw as notpr epar ed t o w ai ve a fi ne, ther eby depr i vi ng taxp ay ers, w h o h ad alread y incu rredex p en ses in co n n ec ti o n w ith D av is’ s p rose cu ti o n , o f a cont empl at ed monet ary penal ty. T hi s i s cons i s t entw i th § 5E 1. 2( a) , w hi ch m andat es “a f i ne in a ll ca se s, e x c e p t w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t e sta b lish e s th a t h e is u n ab le to p a y a n dis n o t li k e ly to b ec o m e a b le t o p ay an y fi n e.” S ee U . S . S . G . § 5 E 1 . 2 (a). 3 . C o n side rati o n o f S tatu tory F ac tors D avi s cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourtf ai l ed ade quat el y t o cons i derand w ei gh the relev an t st atuto ry a n dG u idelines fac tors, see 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 7 2 (a); U . S . S . G . § 5 E 1 . 2 (d), b efo re im p o sing a fine , see U n it ed S tat es v . R att o b all i, 4 5 2 F . 3 d1 2 7 , 1 3 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). S p e c ifica lly , D a v is f

a u lts th e d istric t c o u rt fo r n o t c o n sid e rin g th e im p a c t o f th e fin e o n h is curr entw i f

e, w ho r e mai ne d i n the U ni t e d St a t e s w hi l e he w a s i n J a mai c a , a ndhi s thr ee c h i l d r e n , two o f

who m ar e n o l o n g e rmi n o r s . S e e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 7 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; U. S . S . G. § 5 E 1 .2 (d )( 3 ). I n f a c t , th e d i s tr i c tc o u rta c k n o wl e d g e dDa v i s ’ s a s s e rt i o n th a th i s wi f e ’ s F l o r i d a h o me w a s in fo re c lo su re a n dth a t h e h a dth re e c h ildre n . N e v e rth e les s, it d e term in e dth a t th e se fa c ts d idn o t w a rra n t w a iv e r o f a fin e b e c a u se D a v is h a dn e ith e r tak e n ste p s w h ile in Ja m a ica to as s i s thi s w i f

e f i nanci al l y noradduce d any evi dence thathe w as payi ng or obl i gat ed t o payU n ited S tate s v . D rin k w in e , 1 3 3 F .3 d2 0 3 (2 dC ir. 1 9 9 8 ), o n w h ich D a v is re lies , is 2 nott o the contr ary. T her e, the i m pos i t i on of a $50, 000 f

i ne on an i ndi gentdef endant s ugges t ed thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d notadequa t el y cons i derthe needs of def endant ’ s s on, of w hom def

endanthad cus t ody and f orw hom he w as di r ect ed t o pay chi l d support . S ee i d. at 20 5. H ere, by con tras t , the d i stri ctcou rtm ade spe ci fi c fi nd i ng s r egard i ng D avis ’s asset s, w hi ch coul d be us ed t o pay a m or e modestf i ne of $7, 500, and D avi s adduce d no evi dence that he w as r equ i red t o sup po rtor actuall y sup po rt i ng his pu t at i ve d epen den t s. 5 c h ildsu p p o rt. T o th e e x ten t D a v is a ss e rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre db y n o t sp e c ifica lly di s cus s i ng “o therpert i nentequi t abl e cons i der at i ons , ” U . S. S. G . § 5E 1. 2( d) ( 8) , w e have di s avow ed any “ f

orm ul ai c r equi r ement [ ] ” for “ r obot i c i ncant at i ons ” by di s tr i ctj udges r egar di ng eac h s ent enci ng f act or , U ni t ed St at es v. K el l er , 5 39 F . 3d 97, 101 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i tt ed) . T he r ecor d i n thi s cas e provides no r eas on t o ques t i on the pr es um pt i on thatadi s tr i ctj udge has c ons i der ed al l pe rt i nentf act or s . See U ni t ed St at es v . L eg ros, 52 9 F . 3 d4 7 0 , 4 7 8 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 I ndeed, the di s tr i ctcourti dent i f i ed “the natur e and ci r cumst ance s of the of f ens e and th e h isto ry a n dc h a ra c ter istics o f th e d e fe n d a n t,” s e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 ); th e n e e dto pr om ot e r es pectf

orl aw and pr ovi de appr opr i at e puni s hm ent , s ee i d. § 3553( a) ( 2) (A ); the need t o af

f or d adequa t e det err ence , s ee i d. § 3553( a) ( 2) ( B ) ; and the cos tt o the governm ent o f i m p ri so n ing D av is f

o r rep ea ted ill eg al reen try , see id. § 3 5 7 2 (a)(6), as fac tors w ei ghi ng i n favor of i m po si ng a fi ne even if D avis ’s fam i l y ci rcum st ances m i gh thav e w ei gh ed ag ai nst i t . T o the ext entD avi s chal l enges the w ei ghta s s i gned t o thes e f act or s , w e w i l l “s etas i de a d istri ct co u rt ’s su b stan ti v e d eterm ination o n ly in e x ce p ti o n al ca ses w h e re the tri al co u rt ’s deci s i on cannotbe l ocated w i thi n the r ange of perm i s s i bl e dec i s i ons . ” U ni t ed St at es v.6

C a v e ra , 5 5 0 F .3 da t 1 8 9 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l) (in tern a l qu o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h is is nots uch a c as e. G i ven D avi s ’ s l ong hi s t ory of cr i m i nal conduct– i ncl udi ng drug tr af f i cki ng, par ol e vi ol at i ons , and f r audul entpr ocur ementand us e of i dent i f i cat i on document s – the chal l enged f

i ne w as nots ubs t ant i vel y unr eas onabl e. W e have cons i der ed D avi s ’ s otherar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude thatthey l ack m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e O c to b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9 ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt