Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. David John LUOMA, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-08
Citations: 346 F. App'x 129
Docket Number: No. 09-1417
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. David John LUOMA, Appellant.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 346
Pages: 129–130

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. David John LUOMA, Appellant.
No. 09-1417.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 7, 2009.
Filed: Oct. 8, 2009.
Richard Newberry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
Andrea K. George, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
David John Luoma, Princeton, MN, pro se.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David John Luoma appeals the district court's imposition of a $10,000 fine upon his guilty plea to a pornography offense, arguing that the court did not properly consider the burden the fine would place on Luoma's wife, and that the fine is unreasonable under the circumstances. We review the imposition of a fine and the determination of its amount for clear error. See United States v. Herron, 539 F.3d 881, 888 (8th Cir.2008). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the court did not err: the court properly considered appropriate factors before imposing the fine, including Luoma's ability to pay the fine and the burden the fine would have on Luoma's wife, and the court imposed a fine at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d)(1)-(8) (factors court must consider before imposing a fine); Herron, 539 F.3d at 888-89 (record must provide sufficient information to establish factors were considered before fine is imposed).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
. Contrary to the government's position, we conclude that the issue was adequately preserved for appeal. See United States v. Bauer, 19 F.3d 409, 413 (8th Cir.1994) (although defendant made only vague objection to his financial situation, defendant adequately preserved issue for appeal).