### In th e



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Cir c uit

No. 19-1043

U NI T E D S TAT E S O F A M E RI C A , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

S AL VATORE P I C AR

D I, Defendant-Appellant.

Appea l fro m the U ni ted S ta tes Di stri ct Co urt fo r the No rthern Di stri ct o f Il l i no i s, Ea stern Di v i s i o n. No . 1 :1 6 -cr-0 0 43 1 -1 — Thoma s M. Durkin , Judg e.

A RGU E D S E PT E MB E R 4, 2 019

— D E C I D E D F E B R UAR Y 1 9, 2020

Befor e R OVN E R

, S C UD D E R

, and S T

. E V E, Circuit Judges

. R OVN E R , Cir cuit Ju d

ge. A j ur y f ound S alv ator e Pi car di gui lty of one c ount of embezzlement by an offi cer or employ ee of the Uni ted S tates, i n vi olati on of 18 U.S

. C. § 654. The di str i ct cour t sentenced Pi car di to a ter m of ei ght months’ i mpr i sonment and

a fine of $100,000. On appeal, Pi car di obj ects to the amount of the fin e and to the a dequacy of the di str i ct cour t’s explanati on2 No. 19-1043
for i mposin g an abov e-Gui d el in e s fine. Because Pi car di w ai v ed any ar gument r egar ding the fi ne, w e di smi s s the appeal.
I.
Pi car di w as a Uni ted States Customs and Bor der Pr otecti on (“CBP”) Offi c er w or ki ng at the in ter natio n a l ter minal of O’Har e Inter nati onal Ai r por t in Chi cago. Hi s a ssi gnment ther e
w as to scr een pa ssenger s ar r i vi ng fr om locati ons outsi de the countr y pr i or to thei r entr y into the Uni ted States. On Febr uar y 22, 2 016, he w as w or ki n g in thi s c apaci ty wh e n h e d eci d ed to
s t eal money fr om a tr av eler who had been refer r ed for a secondar y i nspecti on. Pi c ar di ’s behav i or that day contr ib uted si gni fi can t ly to the sentence that the c our t i mposed, but thi s appeal ulti mately tur ns on w ai v er
. T o pr ov i de b ackgr ound for the w ai v er i ssue, we wi ll br i efly summar i ze the ev ents of that day

. CBP Offi cer Feder i co Angulo w as in ter v i ewing Ms. Chen,

a Chinese w oman who spoke n o Engli sh, when Pi c ar di

v olunteer ed to help wi th the inspe c t i on. Wi thi n moments of i nter v ening, Pi c ar di asked h ow m u c h money Ms. Chen w as
car ryi ng, d emanded to see the money , lear ned th at she w as
car ryi ng $5,000 i n $100 bi lls, a n d t h e n took her pur se and sui t case f or a sear ch whi le Offi cer Angulo a nd a n in ter pr eter i nter vi e w ed Ms. Chen. Instead of sear chin g the bags in the

v i ew of a secur i ty camer a, Pi car di placed them behind a desk that blocked the camer a, r emov ed the money and hi d i t on hi s per son. After Offi cer Angulo clear ed Ms. Chen to enter the countr y , he d ir e c t e d her to w ai t in the hallw ay wi th her belongi ngs as he completed the necessar y p a p er w or k. Ms. Chen soonNo. 19-1043 3
di scov er ed t h a t the money w as no longer in her p ur s e. A fr anti c s ear ch b egan. The inter p r eter , the inter pr eter ’s super v i

sor , Offi cer Angulo, another CBP offi c er and a CBP s uper v i sor all par ti ci pated i n the sear ch, as di d Pi car di

. When none of the

s e a r c her s f ound anythi ng in Ms. Chen’s belongi ngs or in the

r oom wher e the i nter v i ew had taken p lace, the CBP s uper v i sor conducted a body sear ch of Ms. Chen. At that poi nt, a w atch commander w as enli sted to r ev i ew secur i ty camer a footage of the i n t e r v i e w r oom. Whi le that r ev i ew w a s taki n g place, the bags w er e m ov ed to another r oom and the offi cer s and i nter p r eter s c onti nued the s ear ch thr ough Ms. Chen’s belongi ngs. Pi car d i paced i n and out of the new sear ch ar ea si x ti mes. After the s i x th exi t and entr y , he pi cked up a n i tem of Ms. Chen’s clothi ng, tur ned aw ay fr om a secur i ty cam e r a a nd shov ed the m oney i nto the clothi ng. He then tr i ed to conv ince the sev er al people who had sear ched that v er y i tem of clothi ng multi ple ti mes that the m oney had been ther e all along. He clai m ed i t had f a l l e n in to the lining of the clothi ng thr ough a hole i n a pocket, and h e t h e n u s ed a kni fe to cut the lining to suppor t hi s st o r y

. Facing an incr edulous gr oup, he then tr i ed to c ast blame on Ms. Chen, suggesti ng that she w as t r y in g t o “scam” them i n or der to get mor e money
. The vi deo ev i d ence, of cour se, poi nted to Pi car di as the only per s on to hav e a c cess to the money when i t di sappear ed.
Pi car di w as char ged w it h embezzlement by an offi cer or employ ee of the Uni ted States, in v i olati on of 18 U.S .C. § 654. He r emained fr ee on bond pending tr i a l

. After a j ur y found h i m g ui lty

, h i s bond w as modi fi ed to r equi r e home confin e ment. Whi le out on bond, Pi car di har assed hi s estr anged wi fe using electr oni c and other means. I n a d d i ti on to hi s own4 No. 19-1043
har assing a cti ons, he engaged a p r i v ate detecti v e in h i s effor ts to i n ti mi date hi s wi fe, falsely telli ng the man that he w as a customs offi cer conducting a legi ti mate i n v esti gati on. After Pi car di w a s conv i cted, he enli sted a fr i end t o appr oach Ms. Chen’s adult daughter to per suade her to c onv ince her m other to r ecant her testi mony

. Ms. Chen’s daughter instead contacted law enfor cement. Because of thi s c o n duct, the cour t r ev oked Pi car di ’s bond thr ee months b efor e h i s sentencing hear ing and he w as taken i nto custody

. The Pr esent e n c e I nv e s t i g a ti o n R e p o r t ( “ P S R ” ) wa s p r e p a r ed appr oxi mately one y ear pr i or to Pi car d i ’s s entencing hear ing, befor e some of the conduct that led to bond rev ocati on c ame to li ght. The PS R ca l culated a base offense lev el of si x, and

r ecommended a t w o-lev el enhancement f or ab use of tr ust under Sentencin g Gui deline 3B1.3, for a total of eight. Wi th a Cr i m i nal Hi stor y Categor y I, that c alculati on r esulted in a Gui delines r ange of zer o to si x m onths’ i mpr i sonment and a fine betw een $2,000 and $ 2 0 , 000. The pr obati on offi c er also submi tted a S entencing Recommendati on whi ch, li ke the PS R, had been dr afted a y ear befor e the sentencing hear ing. The pr obati on off i c e r a d v ocated for a pr i son ter m at the hi gh end of the r ange and a fine of $100,000, n oti ng Pi car di ’s capaci ty to pay a fine i n that amount. Calling attenti on to t h e many aggr a v ati ng factor s i n P ic a r di ’s case, the pr obati on offi cer
r emar ked that, a lthough the Gui delin e s f a i led to account for the ser i ous n atur e of Pi car di ’s offense, she h ad consi der ed other Gui delin e enhancements and found none appli cable. R. 57, at 2. At the sentencing hear in g, both defense counsel and t he defendant confi r med that they had r ead and di scussed the PS RNo. 19-1043 5
and the Sentencing Recommendati on. Defense c ounsel offer ed

one cor r ecti on to the PS R r egar ding Pi car di ’s par ti ci p ati on in ment a l health counseling, whi ch the cour t a ccepted. The gov er nment i ndi c a ted that i t w a s requesting tw o enhancem e nts not menti oned in the PS R. The c our t then a dopted t he PS R except for the sentencing calculati on. The gov er n ment pr oposed tw o tw o-poi nt enhancements:

one for v ulner able v i cti m under G ui d eline secti on 3A1.1(b)(1), and one for obstr u cti on of j usti ce under Gui deline s ecti on 3C1.1. The co ur t r ej ected the v ulner able v i cti m enhancement but agr eed that a tw o-poi n t obstr u cti on enhancement w as appr opr i ate based on Pi car di ’s use o f a fr i end to attempt to i nfluence a wi tness to r ecant testi mony pr i or to s e ntencing. That r esulted i n an offense lev el of ten whi ch car r i ed a r ev i sed Gui delines r ange of si x to tw elv e months’ i mpr i sonmen t a nd

a fi n e of $4,000 to $40,000. The cour t then tur ned to the s ecti on 3553(a) factor s, noti ng that i t w o u l d consi d er under those factor s whether a s ente n c e o utsi de the Gui d eli nes r ange w as appr opr i ate. The gov er n ment ar gued f or a pr i son sentence wi t h i n t he gui d eli nes r ange of si x to tw el v e months, menti oning s ev er al aggr a v ati ng factor s and a few mi ti gati n g factor s. The gov er nment offer ed n o ar gument r egar ding the r eco m m e n d ed fine. Defense counsel emphasi zed how m uch Pi car di had alr eady suffer ed for hi s acti ons. He felt ter r i b le gui l t ov er the death of hi s father fr om a s tr oke t h a t h e suffer ed after Pi car di w as char ged wi th t h is cr i me. Pi car di ’s wi fe di v or c ed hi m after he commi tted the offense, and h e w as unable to r etur n to any job i n law e nfor cement wi th a felony conv i cti on on hi s r ecor d. Defense counsel also a dv is e d t h e cour t that the conv i cti on6 No. 19-1043

mi ght r e s u lt in Pi car di l osi ng h i s r eal estate li c ense. Counsel also noted mi ti gati n g factor s, in cluding Pi car di ’s par ti ci p ati on i n mental he a l t h tr eatment, and hi s commi tment to ceasing har assment tow ar ds hi s ex-wi fe.
But the cr ux of counsel’s ar gument w as how m u ch Pi c ar di had suffer ed i n pr i son dur ing the thr ee months following the

r ev ocati on of bond. Noti ng that h e knew what the gov er nment had asked for i n ter ms of sentencin g and what the p r obati on depar tment had r ecommended, c ounsel asked the c o ur t to li m i t the s en tence to ti me ser v ed, ar gui ng that Pi car di had exper i enced si gn i fi c a n t d i ffi culti es in pr i son. R. 108, S entencing T r anscr i pt, at 41–50 (her eafter “S ent. T r
. ”). At fi r s t, the other i nmates mi si denti fi ed hi m as a p edophi le and thr eatened to physi cally har m him

. Once the inmates lear ned that he w as a law enfor cement offi cer , they thr eatened hi m a nd labeled hi m
a sni tch. He h ad tr ouble eatin g a n d s leepi ng, and had lost a si gni fic ant amount of w ei ght. He became hyper -v i gi lant, and counsel descr i

bed hi m as “ter r i fi ed.” Counsel continued: And I thi n k that in the 90 days he has been in j ai l, he has exper i enced things t h a t w ould r i v a l any of the deeper r ecesses of Dante’s hell. I ask y our Honor to please cut s h o r t t he abj ect ter r or of hi s li fe ci r cumstances and say

, whi le clear ly mor e w ould be a ppr opr i ate, what w ould be suffi ci en t, b ut not gr eater than necessar y

. S ent. T r
. at 4 8. Fi nally

, counsel ur ged the c our t t o c o n s i der i mposin g a fine r ather than addi ti onal ti m e i n pr i son: And i f ther e i s a balancing consi d er a ti on, to please str ongly c onsi der answer ing the questi on of what i sNo. 19-1043 7
suffi ci ent, wi th the r espo n s e t hat the ti me h e has alr eady ser v ed i n puni shment i s enough. Ther e ar e other w ays to puni sh an in di v i dua l. Thi s i s a cr i me of taki n g someone else’s money
. Then a r esponse in addi ti on to the custody that he has ser v ed i s one that has b een recommended by the pr obati o n depar tment, whi chi s a fine. Money thi s man can make hones t ly , legi ti mately

, and has hi s whole li fe. Hi s fr eedom and liber ty has caused hi m to dwindle aw ay physi c ally a n d emoti onally to a p oi nt wher e I fear f or hi m
. Not because I hope y our Honor wi ll gi v e hi m a l i ghter sentence, but because I tr uly do

. A n d I ask y our Honor to consi der that. S ent. T r . at 50. A ft e r h e a r in g P i c a r d i ’ s a l l o cu t i o n , the cour t fi r st deter mined that the pr obati on offi ce ’ s r ecommendati on of thr ee y ear s of super v i sed r elease w as appr opr i a te, and the cour t set the condi ti ons for that per i od of r elease. The cour t then announced i ts deci si on as to the fi ne: All r i ght. I am goi ng to i m pose a fine, the recommended fine of $100,000 – the defendant has the

a bi l i ty to p ay i t – and also a speci al asses s m e n t o f $100. Gi v en the fact that ther e i s a fine, i t s hould be pai d dur i ng the per i od of super v i sed r elease. S ent. T r
. a t 61–62. The cour t sai d nothi ng mor e on the i ssue of the fi ne dur i ng the r emainder of the sentencing hear ing.8 No. 19-1043
T he cour t next tur ned to the i ssue of custody

. The cour t found an extensi v e li st o f a g gr av ati ng factor s, and rej ected

muc h o f the ar gument that Pi car d i had alr eady suffer ed enough, fin ding much of the l oss and p ain to be self-in fli cted. Ci ti ng the ai r p o r t s ecur i ty v i d eo, the cour t deemed Pi car di ’s conduct “callous a n d gr eedy , ” as w ell a s calculating r ather than i mpulsiv e and desper ate as defense counsel had ar gued. Mor eov er

, Pi car di w as acti ng as a law enfor cement offi cer a t the ti me he c ommi tted h i s cr i m e, tar ni shing the integr i ty of an i mpor tant feder a l agency
. He took adv a n t age of an elder ly Chinese w oman w h o di d n ot speak Engli sh, h opi n g that s he

w ould not di scov er hi s theft u n t il s he had left the ai r p or t. He caused her to under go a body sear ch knowi n g that the money
w as in hi s own pocket. And he attempted to deflect r esponsi

bi l i ty fr om h im s elf by casting b lame on hi s v i cti m
. The cour t noted that thi s w a s not a “paper c r i m e” b u t in s t e ad inv olv ed

a r eal v i c t im who endur ed si gni fi cant di str ess. The cour t
r emar ked on Pi car d i ’s fai lur e to apologi ze to the v i cti m dur ing hi s allocuti on to the cour t. The cour t al s o noted that Pi c ar di had har assed hi s w i fe wi th electr oni c communi cati ons and had sent a pr i v a te i nv esti gator to hi s mother -in-law’s home. He had done a l l o f t h ese thi ngs in spi te of h av ing a happy , h ealthy upbr i ngi ng, a g o o d educati on, a suppor ti v e fami ly , a nd no economi c w ants, whi ch the cour t a lso consi der ed to b e aggr a v ati n g ci r cumstances. In mi ti gati on, the cour t noted t hat Pi car di had n o p r i or cr i min a l r e c or d, had u nder gone mental health tr eatment, and had many suppor ti v e letter s fr om f ami ly and fr i ends. The cour t indi c ated that i t w a s in clined to go much hi gher than the si x month sentence recommended by the pr obati on offi cer because of the amount of aggr av ati ngNo. 19-1043 9 conduct, but the cour t w as mov ed by s ome of the letter s fr om fami ly m embe r s
. The cour t r ej ected the suggesti on that ti me
ser v ed w as suffi ci ent and sentenced Pi c a r di to ei ght months’ i mpr i sonment, a ter m wi thin the Gui delin es r ange as r ecalculated to account for Pi car di ’s a ttempt at obstr ucti on of j usti ce. Pi car diappeals.
II. On appeal, Pi c a r di challenges only the fine im po sed. He faults the di str i ct c our t f or fai l in g to make speci fi c findings under G ui d eline 5E1.2(d), and 18 U.S .C. §§ 3553(a) and 3572(a), i n or der to explai n why the abov e-Gui delines f in e w a s i m posed. He char act er i zes the f ai lur e to adequately explai n the fine as a pr ocedur al er r or
. Pi c ar di also asser ts that the fine w as substanti v ely unr easonable. H e concedes that he fai led to obj ect to the fin e, b ut ur ges t h is cour t to find that he mer ely for fei ted r ather than w ai v ed h i s cl a i ms, r ender ing them

r ev i ew able underthe plai n er r or standar d.
W e must fi rst consi der whether Pi car di for fei ted or w ai v ed the ar gument s t h a t he now makes on appeal. “Wher eas for fei tur e i s the fai lur e to make the ti mely asser ti on of a r i ght,

w ai v er i s the ‘i ntenti onal r eli nqui shment or abandonment of a known r i ght

. ’ ” U n i ted States v
. Olano , 507 U.S

. 72 5, 733 (1993) (quoti n g Johnson v
. Z e r b s t, 3 0 4 U.S

. 458, 464 (1938)). W e may
r ev i ew a for fei ted c lai m for plain er ror
. Fed. R. Cr i m. P . 52(b); Olano , 5 07 U.S

. a t 733–3 4

. W ai v er , how ev er

, exti n gui shes any clai mof er ror

, pr ecluding a p pellate r ev i ew
. Olano , 507 U.S . at 7 3 3; United States v
. Y

oung, 908 F .3d 241, 246 (7th Ci r
. 20 1 8 ); United States v . Aslan , 644 F .3d 526, 537 (7th Ci r . 2011).10 No. 19-1043 Although w e hav e ch a r a c t er i zed the line betw een for fei tur e and w ai v er as often blur r y , w e hav e noted some di s ti ncti ons that ai d the analysi s. United States v
. Garcia , 5 80 F

. 3 d 528, 541 (7th Ci r
. 2009). For fei tur e typi cally r esults f r o m an a cci dental

o r ne gli gent omi ssi on; w ai v er ar i ses fr om a knowin g an d i ntenti onal deci si on. Garcia , 580 F .3d at 541. When a defendant chooses as a matter of s tr ategy not to pr esent an ar gument or
o b j e c ti on, w e gener ally v i ew that choi ce as w ai v er
. Y oung, 908 F .3d at 247 (i f a defendant fai ls to r ai s e a speci fi c obj ecti on at sentencing, w e w i ll v i ew i t a s hav ing been w ai v ed i f the defendant had a s tr at e g ic r eason to f or go the ar gument); Garcia , 580 F .3d at 541 (in di stingui shing bet w een for fei tur e and w ai v er

, the i m por tant concer n is whether the defendant chose, as a matter of str ategy , not to pr esent a n ar gument); U n i te d States v
. Allen , 529 F .3d 390, 395 (7th Ci r
. 2008) (i f a speci fi c obj ecti on w as n ot r ai sed at sentencing, w e wi ll v i ew i t
as hav i ng been w ai v ed i f the defendant had a str ategi c r eason to for go the ar gument, that i s, only i f the defendant's c ounsel

w ould not be defi ci ent for fai l ing to r ai se the obj ecti on). For exa mple, a defendant who accepted a plea agr eement that contai ned a sti pul a t io n a s to the amount of the loss and

r esti tuti on for a fr aud char ge w ai v ed any l ater clai m r egar ding that a mount on appeal. Y oung, 908 F

. 3 d a t 246–47. Thi s w as because the defendant made a s tr ategi c deci si on to sti p ulate to
cer tain loss a nd resti tuti on amounts in or der to av oi d a tr i al and the possi

ble i nclusi on of a ddi ti onal amounts. Id

. S i mi lar ly , a defendant who di d not obj ect to the s c o pe of joi ntly u nder

taken c r im in al acti v i ty in or der to pr eser v e a sentencing
r educti on for acceptance of r esponsi bi l i ty wa ive d a ny ob

je cti onNo. 19-1043 11

to that scope. Aslan , 644 F .3d at 537; United States v
. Salem , 597 F .3d 877, 890 (7th Ci r . 2010) (same). In thi s case, the str ategi c deci s i on i s obv i ous on the face of t h e r ecor d, and Pi car di has w ai v ed h i s obj ecti ons both t o t he amount of the fine and to the adequacy of the explanati on. W e begi n by notin g t hat b oth Pi car di and hi s lawy er affi r med a t the sentencin g hear i ng tha t t he y had r ead a nd di scussed the pr obati on offi cer ’s S entencing Recommendati on. That document i n cluded the pr oposed $ 100,000 fine, a r ecommendati on made at a ti m e when the maxi mum Gui delines fine had b een calculated to be $20,000. That maxi m um w as adj usted upw ar d t o $40,000 a t the sentencing hear in g, and Pi car di does not
asser t that the cour t mi scalculated the cor r ect G u i delines r ange for the fine. Moments befor e maki ng h i s case for a sentence of t im e s er v ed, counsel affi r med agai n that he knew “what t he pr obati on depar tment has r ecommended.” S ent. T r
. a t 45. Ther e can be li ttle doubt that both Pi car di a nd hi s lawy er knew what w as at s take: the maxi mum u n der the Gui delines w as $40,000, and the p r obati on depar tment r ecommendati on w as $100,000.
In the context of a sentencing r ecommendati on for custody at the hi gh end of the Gui delines and a $100,000 fine, Pi car di ’s

c o u n s el made an extensi v e plea for a sentence of ti me s er v ed because of th e e x t r e m e d i ffi cu l t i e s th a t Pi car di had encounter ed i n hi s thr ee months i n pr i son. A w ar e that “ clear ly mor e [ti me]

w ould be appr opr i ate,” (S ent. T r
. at 48), a n d that the cour t mi ght not accede to a r equest for ti me ser v ed, counsel offer ed the cour t a “balancing consi der ati on.” S ent. T r
. at 50. S peci fi

cally , he ar gued that ti me ser v ed w as p uni shment enough, and that “[t]her e ar e other w a ys to puni sh an indi v i dual.” S ent. T r
.12 No. 19-1043

at 50. N amely

, because the natur e of the cr i me w as “taki ng
someone else’s money

,” “[ t ]h e n a r esponse in addi ti on to the custody t h a t he has ser v ed i s one that has been recommended by the p ro bation department, whi ch i s a fine.” S ent. T r
. at 50 ( emphasi s added). That w as a thi r d and expli ci t acknowledgment that counsel w as aw ar e of the pr obati on depar tment’s r ecommendati on and w as now pr oposing to balance the r equest f or ti me
ser v ed (thr ee m onths) wi th the recommended fine ($100,000). The balance he pr oposed w a s thus for a bel o w - Gui delin es sentence of thr ee months, 1 in exchange for the abov e-Gui delin es fine r ecommended by the pr obati on de p a r t m e nt. Counsel concluded by expoundi ng on P i car di ’s abi l i ty to make money , and dr ov e home hi s poi nt that custody had “ caused hi m to dwindle aw ay physi cally and emoti onally to the p oi nt wher e I fear for hi m.” S ent. T

r
. at 50. It w as only a f t e r thi s ar gument that the cour t announced that i t w as fining Pi car d i the amount
r ecommended by the pr obati on offi cer
. Thi s w a s not si mply an inadv er tent fai lur e to obj ect to the i mposi ti on of an a b ov e-Gui delines fine; i t w as a calculated, str a tegi c d eci si on. Counsel w a s aw ar e of the many aggr av ati ng factor s pr esent i n the c ase. Befor e pi tching hi s “balancing consi der a ti on” ar gument, c ounsel had twi ce indi cated that he

w as aw ar e o f t he pr obati on depar tment’s sentencing recommendati on, whi ch of cour se included the pr oposed $100,000 fine. He then r efer red a thi r d ti me to th e r ecommendati on b y

1 Three m onths co nsti tuted ha l f o f the b o tto m o f the Gui del i nes ra nge (si x
mo nths), a nd o nl y one-qua rter o f th e to p o f the ra nge (twel v e mo nths). The

reco mmended fi ne o f $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 wa s two and a ha l f ti mes the to p o f the ra n ge ($ 4 0 ,0 0 0 ).No. 19-1043 13 suggesti ng that the cour t i mpose that fine in li eu of addi ti onal pr i son ti me. Those thr ee r e f e r ences to the pr obati on depar tment’s r ecom m e n d a t i o n , w i thout any a ccompanying obj ecti on to the abov e-Gui delines fine, w o u ld hav e l ed any j udge to beli ev e that counsel knew the amount and had no pr ob lem wi th the r ecommended fine. The fai lur e to flag the amount of the r ecommended fine as an i ssue w a s c l e a r l y the r esult of a str a tegi c deci s i on made in the hope that i t w ould w o r k to hi s cli ent’s benefi t on t h e custody deter minati on. See Y oung, 908 F .3d at 247 ( f in d ing an obj ecti on to l oss and resti tuti on amounts w ai v ed when defendant had sti pulated to the amounts i n the hopes of av oi ding gr eater li abi li ty). That the str a tegy w as not enti r ely successful (because the cour t or der ed add it i onal custody as w ell as the fine) d oes n ot mean that i t

w as n ot a str ategy

. Mor eov er

, Pi car di c an har dly complain that the cour t fai led to explai n adequately i ts deci si on to i m pose the abov e-Gui delines fin e when c ounsel led the c our t to beli ev e that he had no obj ecti on to the fine. See United States v
. W alton , 255 F .3d 437, 442 (7th Ci r
. 2 001) (“A par ty may not by hi s own acti ons lull the c o u r t into beli ev ing that an expr ess fin ding i s
unnecessary and then obj ect when i t makes no such findin g.”).
In gener al, the better pr acti c e i s for a cour t to explai n i ts
r easons f or i mposing a n abov e-Gui delines fine. I n t he usual

cour se of r ev i ewing sentences, w e fi r s t ensur e that the di s tr i ct
cour t commi tted n o si gni fi cant pr ocedur al er r or such as i ncor r ectly c a lculating t h e Gui delines r ange or fai ling to explai n a dequately the chosen sentence, among other t h in g s
. Gall v
. United States , 552 U.S

. 38, 5 1 (2007). Gui deline 5E1.2 and 18 U.S .C. § 3572(a) (whi ch incor por ates b y r efer ence s ecti on14 No. 19-1043 3553(a)) set for th factor s for cour ts to consi der in setti n g a fine. 2 A cour t need not offer expr ess or speci f ic f i n din gs f or ev er y factor , and i t i s someti mes clear fr om the r ecor d that the cour t has pr oper ly cons i d er ed the r elev ant factor s. United States v
. Artley, 489 F .3d 81 3 , 826 (7th Ci r
. 2007). But w e w i ll remand wher e i t i s unclear whether the cour t has consi der ed the

r elev a nt factor s, such a s when the c o u r t a dopts the factual f in dings of the PS R but then d ev i ates fr om the r ecommen d a ti on of the p r obati on offi ce, or i f the cour t declines to adopt the findings of the PS R and makes no findings of i ts own. Id ; United States v. Bauer, 129 F .3d 962, 968 (7th Ci r . 1997). See also United States v
. W

ashington , 739 F .3d 1080, 1082 ( 7 t h C ir

. 2014) ( upholdi ng below-Gui delines fine because i t w a s not inconsi stent wi th the r ecommendati on of the adop t e d P S R). But the defendant her e w a i v ed any obj ecti on to the fine and led the

cour t to beli ev e that ther e w as no r eason to fur ther explai n i ts deci si on. That w ai v er exti ngui shes any clai m of er r or , pr ecludi ng appellate r ev i ew

. The appeal i s ther efor e DIS MIS SED.

2 S entenci ng Gui del i ne 5 E1 .2 di r e c t s c o urts to i mpo se fi nes i n a l l ca ses
ex cept tho se where the defenda nt estab l i shes tha t h e i s unab l e to pa y a nd i s n o t l i k el y to b eco me a bl e t o pa y. The co urt di d i n fa ct fi nd tha t Pi ca rdi ha d the ab i li ty to pa y the fi ne i mpo s ed, a nd the P S R ( w h i c h the co urt
a do pted wi tho ut o bjecti o n) estab l i shed a so l i d fa ctua l b a si s fo r th a t fi ndi ng,
na mel y, Pi ca rdi ’s si gni fi ca n t net w o rth. I nteresti ngl y, co unsel ’s argument
a t the sentenci ng hea ri ng to uched o n ma ny of the fa cto rs tha tco urts must
co n si der under Gui del i n e 5 E1 .2 (d) a nd secti o n 35 7 2(a ) i n s e ttin g th e amo unt
o f the fi ne. T h e “ ba l a nci ng co nsi dera ti o n ” pl ea tha t co unsel o ffered suppo rts the ab o v e-Gui del i nes a m o unt under tho se fa cto rs.