Opinion ID: 613134
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural Reasonableness: Burden on Defendant and Dependents

Text: Mr. Perez-Jiminez argues that the district court was required to consider the burden his fine would place on his dependents, but failed to focus[] on the burden Mr. Perez-Jiminez's daughter may experience because of his fine. Aplt. Opening Br. at 25-26. This argument sounds in procedural error because it alleges that the district court did not consider a factor that it was required to take into account in sentencing Mr. Perez-Jiminez to a fine. See United States v. Elfgeeh, 515 F.3d 100, 136 (2d Cir.2008) (In calculating a defendant's fine, the sentencing court must follow a procedure similar to the post- Booker procedure that it is to follow in calculating a defendant's term of imprisonment: It must consider the Guidelines recommendation for the imposition of a fine, consider the § 3553(a) factors, and consider the fine-specific factors listed in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3571 and 3572.); cf. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 (recognizing that failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors is a procedural error). In addition to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court must consider the additional factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) in determining whether to impose a fine at all, and must also consider both the § 3572(a) factors and the similar factors set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d) in setting the amount of any fine. See 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a); U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d); see also Vigil, 644 F.3d at 1123 ([Section] 3572(a) sets forth factors that must be considered by a district court in determining whether to impose a fine, and the amount, time for payment, and method of payment of a fine. Section 5E1.2(d) of the Guidelines sets forth similar factors to be considered in determining the amount of a fine. (alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Both § 3572(a) and § 5E1.2(d) require the district court to consider the burden that a fine would impose on the defendant and his dependents. See 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a)(2) (requiring the district court to consider the burden that the fine will impose upon defendant, [or] any person who is financially dependent on the defendant); U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d)(3) (requiring the district court to consider the burden that the fine places on the defendant and his dependents). Although the district court is not required to make factual findings specific to each factor set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) or U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, we have indicated that the record must reflect the court's consideration of the pertinent factors and the basis for the imposition of a fine. Vigil, 644 F.3d at 1124. Mr. Perez-Jiminez cannot prevail on his procedural challenge  that is, his contention that the district court erred in failing to consider the burden that the fine would impose on his daughter. According to the PSR, Mr. Perez-Jiminez had no financial dependents and his daughter was eighteen years old. Mr. Perez-Jiminez did not object to these findings. Consequently, the district court would have been under no statutory or regulatory obligation to consider the burden of any fine on his daughter on the ground that she was a dependent. 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a)(2); U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d)(3). In any event, the district court clearly did consider the impact of the fine on Mr. Perez-Jiminez's daughter. Mr. Perez-Jiminez's counsel offered a passionate argument against the imposition of a fine, noting that taking such an action would be exceptionally counterproductive and that Mr. Perez-Jiminez's prison savings should go to a place where it's going to have a productive impact upon a human being whose dad hasn't been able to give her much else. R., Vol. 2, at 44. (Sentencing Hr'g Tr., dated July 13, 2010). The district court noted that its initial inclination was to issue a fine of $4,000, but, [i]n light of the statements that [Mr. Perez-Jiminez's counsel] ha[d] made, the court back[ed] that [fine amount] down to 2,000. Id. at 55-56. The district court was not required to set forth more specific factual findings to support the fine it imposed. See Trujillo, 136 F.3d at 1398 (To the extent Mr. Trujillo is suggesting the court must set forth factual findings specific to each statutory factor prior to imposing a fine, we disagree. This court imposes no such requirement. It is sufficient that the record reflects the basis for the imposition of the fine. (citations omitted)); accord Vigil, 644 F.3d at 1124. Accordingly, the district court did not commit procedural error.