Opinion ID: 201905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The fine — Pérez

Text: 91 Pérez challenges his $4 million fine on the ground that he is indigent and has no potential ability to pay the fine in the future, and so it was error for the court to impose it. Pérez did not challenge the fine in the district court, so we review for plain error. See United States v. Peppe, 80 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir.1996). 92 Pérez never submitted financial information before sentencing. 9 At sentencing, the district court stated: 93 The Court imposes upon you no fine due to your inability to pay a fine. I take that back. I take that back. The Court imposes upon you the maximum fine under the sentencing guidelines, $4 million. I don't think you have the capability of paying it, and you cannot be required or any sanction levied against you due to a genuine inability to pay. There's a great deal of money here and if the government can find any of it we'll have it applied to that fine. (emphasis added) 94 Pérez argues that since the court found an inability to pay, no fine should be imposed. 95 Guideline § 5E1.2(a) places the burden on the defendant to establish inability to pay a fine: The 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. See also United States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 620 (1st Cir.1993) ([U]nder the guidelines, a fine is the rule — and it is the defendant's burden to demonstrate that his case is an exception.). The showing required of the defendant is not only of present indigence, but also of future inability to pay: To meet his burden, a defendant must establish that it is more likely than not that he is both unable to pay a fine and will not be able to pay in the future.... A present lack of assets or even a negative net worth will not preclude imposition of a fine unless a defendant also demonstrates that he lacks the ability to earn and to pay a fine in the future. United States v. Rowe, 268 F.3d 34, 38 (1st Cir.2001) (citations omitted). 96 Express findings about a defendant's financial condition are not necessary to support the imposition of a fine if the record is sufficient to permit appellate review. As long as the record evidence supports a fine, the district court is presumed to have considered the applicable statutory criteria. Id. at 39 (citations omitted). 10 97 The record supports the district court's decision to impose the fine. Pérez's inability to pay does not follow inexorably from the facts in the record. Peppe, 80 F.3d at 23. Here, we understand the district court to have concluded that while Pérez might have no present ability to pay, he had not shown that he was not likely to become able to pay. The court quite reasonably determined that Pérez might be or become in possession of some of the ill-gotten gains of the conspiracy. Cf. United States v. Lujan, 324 F.3d 27, 34 (1st Cir.2003) (stating that the district court must consider, among other things ... the need to deprive the defendant of ill-gotten gains). 98