Opinion ID: 658545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The $1,000,000 Fine on Rosa

Text: 176 Rosa challenges the court's imposition on him of a $1,000,000 fine. We find no basis for reversal. Section 5E1.2 of the Guidelines provides that [t]he 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. Guidelines Sec. 5E1.2(a). In imposing a fine, a court is to consider, inter alia, the defendant's income, earning capacity, and financial resources. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3572(a)(1) (1988). The court must afford the defendant at least a minimal opportunity to show that he lacks the ability to pay the fine proposed by the court. See United States v. Marquez, 941 F.2d 60, 65-66 (2d Cir.1991). Generally, if the defendant is represented by (or was determined eligible for) assigned counsel, that fact is a significant indicator[ ] of present inability to pay any fine. Guidelines Sec. 5E1.2 Application Note 3. 177 In the present case, although Rosa was represented by assigned counsel, that fact was not dispositive. The PSR revealed that Rosa had received 30% of the proceeds from three lucrative Organization spots, that he refused to disclose his earnings from his auto body repair shop, and that he was part owner of a home in Puerto Rico. The PSR concluded that Rosa was not entirely forthright and that there was no support for his claim to be unable to pay a fine. We are not persuaded that in these circumstances, the court erred in imposing the fine. 178