Opinion ID: 42252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fine Issue

Text: Next, Looney argues that the district court erred by imposing a $75,000 fine because 26 U.S.C. § 7203 provides for a maximum fine of $25,000.8 Based on the following, we conclude that the district court did not err, much less plainly err, by 7 We do not mean to suggest by our holding that the district court must impose any particular sentence on remand. Rather, we merely hold that the government did not meet its burden of showing that the Booker statutory error was harmless. We also do not attempt to decide now whether a particular sentence might be reasonable in this case. We also note that Looney argues that a resentencing under an advisory Guidelines regime would violate his due process rights and the ex post facto Clause because his new sentence could exceed the maximum that he received under a mandatory pre-Booker Guidelines regime. However, this Court has already rejected Looney’s due process/ex post facto argument. See United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2005). 8 Because Looney did not raise the statutory maximum fine issue in the district court, we review it for plain error. See United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir. 2005). 19 imposing a fine of $75,000. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7203, “[a]ny person” who violates the statute is “guilty of a misdemeanor” and “shall be fined not more than $25,000.” 26 U.S.C. § 7203. However, in 1984, Congress added to the criminal code a general fine statute applicable to all offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 3571. Under § 3571, an individual who has been found guilty of a Class A misdemeanor may be fined “not more than the greatest of” the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense, $100,000, or twice the gross gain or loss. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3571(b), (d).9 In addition, § 3571(e) provides that a defendant may be fined more than the amount listed in the statute setting forth the offense of conviction, unless the offense of conviction exempts a larger fine. Specifically, § 3571(e) states: Special rule for lower fine specified in substantive provision. – If a law setting forth an offense specifies no fine or a fine that is lower than the fine otherwise applicable under this section and such law, by specific reference, exempts the offense from the applicability of the fine otherwise applicable under this section, the defendant may not be fined more than the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(e) (emphasis added). Thus, a lower fine limit in the statute setting forth the offense of conviction does not preclude the district court from imposing a higher fine under the general fine statute unless the statute setting forth 9 A violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 is a Class A misdemeanor, as it is punishable by not more than one year of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(6); 26 U.S.C. § 7203. 20 the offense of conviction specifically says so. The statute under which Looney was convicted, 26 U.S.C. § 7203, does not contain any language exempting it from 18 U.S.C. § 3571, the general fine statute. Thus, the statutory maximum fine applicable to Looney’s offense is either twice the tax liability from Looney’s offense ($141,333) or $100,000.10 We also note that the Guidelines fine range for Looney’s offense is $4,000 to $40,000. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2. However, in cases such as Looney’s, the Guidelines provide district courts wide discretion to depart upwardly as to fines. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2 cmt. n. 4.11 In this case, the district court chose to do so, stating that it was imposing “a fine in the amount of $75,000. That’s an upward departure made on the basis of 5E1.2, Note 4.” Thus, the district court did not err, much less plainly err, in imposing a fine of $75,000, and we affirm Looney’s fine.