
USCA1 Opinion

	














        October 10, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No.  96-1035 

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                               HENRY CIFUENTES-RIASCOS,

                                Defendant, Appellant. 

                                 ____________________


                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon.  Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.  
                                           ______________

                                 ____________________

            Benico Sanchez  Rivera, Federal Public  Defender, and Miguel  A.A.
            ______________________                                ____________
        Nogueras-Castro,  Assistant  Federal  Public  Defender,  on brief  for
        _______________
        appellant. 
            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney, Warren Vazquez and  Nelson
            _____________                           ______________      ______
        Perez-Sosa,  Assistant United  States  Attorneys, and  Jose A.  Quiles
        __________                                             _______________
        Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. 
        ________


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________

















                      Per Curiam.    Defendant was  convicted of  unlawful
                      __________

            re-entry  by  a deported  alien in  violation  of 8  U.S.C.  

            1326(b)(2).   He was sentenced  to 100 months imprisonment and

            fined $500.   On appeal he argues for the first  time that the

            district court erred in imposing the fine where the defendant

            was financially  unable to pay.    This  objection not  having

            been made below, it  is reviewed for  plain error only.    See
                                                                      ___

            United  States  v. Peppe,  80 F.3d  19,  22 (1st  Cir.  1996). 
            ______________     _____

            After careful review of  the parties' briefs and the  record,

            we find no error. 

                      The  sentencing guidelines provide that a fine must

            be imposed  within a  specified range  unless a  defendant is

            unable  to  pay.     See  U.S.S.G.     5E1.2(a)(b).     When  a
                                ___

            sentencing court  finds a  defendant unable  to pay  the fine

            established by the guidelines, "the court may impose a lesser

            fine or  waive the  fine."   U.S.S.G.    5E1.2(f).    Here, the

            district court expressly found that, based on the defendant's

            financial  condition, "the  imposition of  a fine  within the

            required range is  not viable,"  and, instead  of imposing  a

            fine  within the  applicable  range of  $10,000 to  $100,000,

            fined  the defendant $500.    The court was  authorized by the

            guidelines to do so.   See U.S.S.G.   5E1.2(f).    There was no
                                  ___

            plain error.    Cf.  United States v. Rivera, 68 F.3d 5, 8 (1st
                           ___ _____________    ______

            Cir.  1995)  (no  plain  error  in imposing  fine  well  below





                                         -2-















            guideline minimum where  defendant lacked apparent source  of

            funds). 

                      Affirmed.   See Loc.  R. 27.1. 
                      ________   ___















































                                         -3-







