Opinion ID: 3062094
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conflicting Factual Findings

Text: Defendant further argues that the district court’s finding that he failed to demonstrate inability to pay was clearly erroneous in light of its later finding that he was unable to afford counsel on appeal. We admit to being perplexed about why, less than three months after sentencing, the district court changed its mind about Defendant’s financial condition. But even if a court changes its mind about the persuasiveness of the same evidence, it cannot revise the sentence sua sponte three months later, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 35; and we must affirm a prior reasonable decision. A decision is not procedurally unreasonable just because another judge (or even the same judge) could later reach a contrary, albeit reasonable, decision. 3. Whether Defendant Met His Burden To Show Inability To Pay Defendant contends that the district court, in finding that he failed to meet his burden to show inability to pay, relied on erroneous information. First, the district court based its determination partly on his lack of cooperation and candor, but Defendant maintains that the record shows that he dutifully submitted documents that the probation officer and the court had requested. Second, the court indicated that the financial summary submitted by Defendant’s wife seemed incomplete, but Defendant argues (1) that the summary was complete; (2) that the -11- $500,000 donation to the educational foundation at Fort Hays State University was not included because it was an unpaid pledge; and (3) that in any event, the court should rely primarily on submissions by Defendant rather than that of his wife. Third, the court relied on the fact that Defendant still had a 50% interest in his house, some personal property, and “a lot of equity[,]” R., Vol. 3 at 44, but Defendant argues that it failed to consider adequately his liabilities and lack of cash flow. These arguments are unavailing. The validity of the evidence he proffers depends on his credibility, which the district court doubted. It had ample reason to do so, given Defendant’s evasiveness and the absence of any detail in his accounting of his assets. In light of the record, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant did not meet his burden to prove his inability to pay a fine.