Opinion ID: 689129
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Fine and Restitution.

Text: 28 Kassar argues that the district court improperly imposed a fine and ordered restitution. With respect to the fine, USSG Sec. 5E1.2(a) provides that: 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. The defendant bears the burden of showing that he cannot pay a fine, but may meet that burden by an independent showing or by reference to the PSR. United States v. Rivera, 22 F.3d 430, 440 (2d Cir.1994). While a sentencing court may not base the imposition of a fine on mere suspicion that the defendant has funds, it should not uncritically accept a defendant's representation that he has no assets. Id. Moreover, an inference that a defendant has funds may be drawn from circumstantial evidence. United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347, 1383 (2d Cir.1994). Specifically, evidence of lucrative illegal activity can support a judge's finding that a defendant is able to pay a fine levied against him. United States v. Orena, 32 F.3d 704, 716 (2d Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Amato, 15 F.3d 230, 237 (2d Cir.1994)). 29 In this case, the PSR determined that Kassar appear[ed] to be unable to pay a fine because of lack of assets and large debts, including the Tennessee order of restitution. In addition, Kassar is represented by assigned counsel, a  'significant indicator[ ] of present inability to pay any fine.'  Stevens, 985 F.2d at 1188 (quoting USSG Sec. 5E1.2, comment. (n. 3)) (alteration in Stevens ). Kassar contends that he has thus established his indigence by reference to the PSR. He also argues that his sentence was based upon impermissible speculation, invoking Stevens. In Stevens, the district court stated that it was  'willing to bet if [the probation officers] scratch hard enough, they will find [that the defendant] ... does have funds,'  985 F.2d at 1188 (quoting transcript of district court proceedings) (ellipsis in Stevens, other alterations added), and noted that drug dealers generally make and hide large amounts of money. Id. We reversed and remanded for resentencing because a court may not simply presume that funds are available to pay a fine. Id. 30 The government argues that in this case, unlike Stevens, the PSR contains sufficient evidence for the district court to have concluded that Kassar profited from his fraudulent scheme: Kassar rented at least two apartments for this operation and obtained telephone service in his own name and under an alias; he received approximately $1.00 to $4.00 per minute for each fraudulent call that he placed; and at least $9,000 of the proceeds, representing his share, were wired to Kassar in New York from the Middle East. In addition, Kassar was able to post a $25,000 bond to secure his release from the INS after his conviction in Tennessee, although he has failed to pay the restitution ordered in Tennessee. 31 Judge Raggi articulated the basis for imposing a fine and restitution by stating: I imposed the fine and the order of restitution--because I simply don't believe your statements that you don't have any money. You may not have any money in this country. But I do not believe that you were engaged in these schemes without profiting from them. 32 It would have been preferable for the court to have elaborated somewhat upon the information in the PSR that supported this evaluation. Unlike Stevens, however, the district court did not engage in general speculation about the profitability of drug dealing to support a $2,000,000 fine, but rather made specific reference to the schemes that Kassar conducted, concerning whose profitability there was ample information before the court, to support the imposition of a modest $2,000.00 fine. Bearing in mind that circumstantial evidence may support an inference that a defendant has funds, Wong, 40 F.3d at 1383, and specifically that evidence of lucrative illegal activity may provide such support, Orena, 32 F.3d at 716, we affirm the imposition of a fine upon Kassar. 33 Turning to the order of restitution, USSG Sec. 5E1.1 incorporates 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3664(a), which requires the court to consider, when deciding whether to impose restitution: the victim's loss, the defendant's financial resources, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents, and any other factors deemed appropriate. Further, as we stated in United States v. Broyde, 22 F.3d 441 (2d Cir.1994):  'Although the court need not set forth its findings in detail, the record must demonstrate that the court has considered these factors in ordering restitution.'  Id. at 442 (quoting United States v. Tortora, 994 F.2d 79, 81 (2d Cir.1993)). 34 Kassar contends that the district court did not consider his financial resources and erred in supposing that he has assets. The district court's discussion of Kassar's assets, however, indicates that it considered his resources. Moreover, as discussed above, we believe that the district court was entitled to draw an inference that Kassar has assets, based upon the available circumstantial evidence. 35 Moreover, while Sec. 5E1.2(a) states that a fine shall be imposed except where the defendant cannot pay, Sec. 3664(a) contains no similar bar to imposing restitution. Rather, the defendant's resources are only one factor that must be considered. See United States v. Atkinson, 788 F.2d 900, 902 (2d Cir.1986) (Like other aspects of sentencing, restitution orders require an exercise of discretion ..., and this requires a delicate balancing of diverse, sometimes incomparable factors, some of which not only lack certainty but may indeed be based on mere probabilities, expectations, guesswork, even a 'hunch.' ). Indeed, a district court must have a certain amount of leeway when imposing restitution because of the victim's interests. We accordingly affirm the order of restitution. 36 Although we affirm the amount of the fine and restitution, we remand for resentencing because the district court impermissibly delegated to the probation department the determination of the schedule of installment payments for the fine and restitution. While an installment schedule may be set, see 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3572(d), 3663(f)(1) (permitting court to provide for payment in installments of fine and restitution, respectively), we recently held with respect to restitution, subsequent to the entry of the judgment on appeal in this case, that the district court may not authoriz[e] a probation officer to make post-sentencing decisions as to either the amount of the restitution or the schedule of installment payments ... [because the district court] cannot delegate the judicial functions inherent in the grant of restitution to the probation department. United States v. Porter, 41 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir.1994) (citations omitted). The statutory language of Secs. 3572(d) and 3663(f)(1) identically impose upon the court the responsibility for determining installment payments; we accordingly hold that the Porter rule applies to fines as well as orders of restitution. 37