Opinion ID: 3062894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: reasonableness of the fine imposed

Text: Mena-Valenzuela claims the district court erred by imposing a fine of $2,000 because he claims he is unable to pay the fine and a fine would burden his dependents in Mexico. Mena-Valenzuela also contends the record is insufficient to show the district court considered any of the relevant factors before imposing the fine. We review a district court’s determination of an appropriate fine for clear error. United States v. Rowland, 906 F.2d 621, 623 (11th Cir. 1990). The Sentencing Guidelines state a district court “shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) (emphasis added). Thus, the burden is on the defendant to prove his inability to pay a fine. United States v. Hernandez, 160 F.3d 661, 665 (11th Cir. 1998). If a defendant establishes he is unable to pay a fine or that the fine would burden his dependents, the court may waive the fine or impose a lesser fine. U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(e). 4 When a district court decides that a fine is appropriate, it must consider the factors in § 5E1.2(d) to determine the amount of the fine. Hernandez, 160 F.3d at 665. A district court is not required to make specific findings for each of these factors. Id. at 665–66. However, “the record must contain sufficient information with respect to the seven factors to permit us to find that the district court did not clearly err in imposing or setting the amount of the fine.” United States v. Khawaja, 118 F.3d 1454, 1459 (11th Cir. 1997). If the PSI presented information with respect to the factors, and the district court reviewed the PSI prior to imposing the fine, we will “infer without hesitation that the district court considered the pertinent factors prior to imposing the fine.” Id. Because the PSI contained information relevant to the § 5E1.2(d) factors, we infer that the district court considered the factors before imposing the fine, which was far below the Guidelines range of $7,500 to $75,000. Prior to imposing the fine, the district court specifically noted Mena-Valenzuela’s agreement to pay $2,000 to a coyote to illegally smuggle him into the country as well as his admission that he had been able to send excess wages home to his family while working in the United States. Because the record cited by the district court indicated Mena-Valenzuela had the means to pay the fine at the amount set, and because Mena-Valenzuela presented no evidence as to his inability to pay the 5 below-Guidelines range fine, Mena-Valenzuela did not meet his burden of proof in demonstrating the fine was unreasonable. The district court did not commit clear error in imposing the fine, and we accordingly affirm the imposition of the fine. AFFIRMED. 6