Opinion ID: 3013049
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Imposition of a $20,000 Fine

Text: Section 5E1.2(a) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual states: “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.” Section 5E1.2(d)(1)-(7) requires that in determining the amount of the fine the court consider factors such as the need for punishment and deterrence, the defendant’s ability to pay, the burden the fine places on the defendant and his dependants, any restitution or reparation by the defendant, collateral consequence of conviction, whether the defendant has previously been fined for similar offenses, the expected costs to the government of probation and incarceration and any other equitable considerations. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) also requires the court to consider “the defendant’s income, earning capacity, and financial resources,” “the burden the fine will impose upon the defendant, any person who is financially dependent on the defendant, or any other person (including the government) that would be responsible for 3 the welfare of any person financially dependent on the defendant,” the pecuniary loss inflicted on others as a result of the offense and whether restitution has been ordered or made. 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a)(1)-(4). A district court must make a finding on the defendant’s ability to pay the fine. United States v. Electrodyne Sys. Corp., 147 F.3d 250, 252 (3d Cir. 1998); United States v. Seale, 20 F.3d 1279, 1284 (3d Cir. 1994). But “[w]here the court has created enough of a factual record that it is clear that it considered a defendant’s ability to pay, its findings may be deemed adequate.” Electrodyne, 147 F.3d at 255; Seale, 20 F.3d at 1284. We have plenary review over the sufficiency of a district court’s findings, and we review the determination that defendant was able to pay a fine and the amount of the fine for clear error. Seale, 20 F.3d at 1284. However, since the appellant did not object to the District Court’s finding as to his ability to pay or the amount of the fine at the sentencing hearing, we must review for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (“plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.”); Olano, 507 U.S. at 732.2 In a plain error analysis, the decision to correct the forfeited error is “within the sound discretion of the court of appeals, and 2 An objection to the amount of the fine would have been timely at the sentencing hearing after the amount of the fine was announced. See United States v. Fox, 140 F.3d 1384 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Monem, 104 F.3d 905, 911 (7 th Cir. 1997) (reviewing fine amount for plain error where defendant “did not object to the imposition of the fine at sentencing”). Parasconda did write a letter to the Court requesting a hearing on his ability to pay the fine, but this letter was not entered into the docket until December 19, and the judgm ent order was entered two days earlier - on December 17. 4 the court should not exercise that discretion unless the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985)). Improperly imposing a fine or restitution can constitute an illegal sentence which affects a substantial right and amounts to plain error. See United States v. Diaz, 245 F.3d 294, 312 (3d Cir. 2001); United States v. Coates, 178 F.3d 681, 684 (3d Cir. 1999). Here, the District Court did not discuss Parasconda’s finances and merely stated that it “adopts the factual findings in the guideline application in the pre-sentence report” and “finds that the defendant has the ability to pay a fine.” Parasconda suggests that the factual findings in the Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) do not support a conclusion that he is able to pay a fine in the amount of $20,000, and points out that the PSR only recommends a “minimal” fine. The government argues that since Parasconda admitted in his plea agreement to causing a loss of approximately $30,000 3 and agreed to “make full restitution in accordance with a schedule to be determined by the court” he implicitly admitted his ability to pay a fine of $20,000 and the District Court did not have to make any factual findings on ability to pay or consider the other factors in U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d) and 18 U.S.C. § 3572 relevant to deciding the amount of a fine. In Electrodyne, the parties 3 Specifically, the agreement stated that the amount of loss attributable to the defendant “is no more than $120,000 and defendant reserved the right to “demonstrate that the amount of loss is approximately $30,000. 5 stipulated in the plea agreement that $140,000 was an appropriate fine, but the district court imposed a one-million dollar fine. This Court stated: “[i]f the judge accepts the negotiated fine, no detailed finding of ability to pay is necessary because the defendant has implicitly acknowledged its ability by virtue of the agreement.” Id. at 254-55. On its face, this situation is distinguishable from Electrodyne since Parasconda did not agree to pay a stipulated fine amount but merely agreed to make “full” restitution. However since the District Court declined to impose any restitution 4 , but only imposed a fine, appellant’s promise to make full restitution for a loss that was larger than the amount of the fine constitutes an admission of ability to pay and no factual finding was necessary. Thus, the court did not commit plain error.