Opinion ID: 613134
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantive Reasonableness: Amount of Fine

Text: Mr. Perez-Jiminez argues that his $2000 fine was unnecessary and excessive because the parties both argued that no fine should be imposed, and the probation office recommended only a $1,000 fine. Aplt. Opening Br. at 25. Mr. Perez-Jiminez further contends that the monies the district court found significant were in fact the meager savings of Mr. Perez-Jiminez's prison earnings, saved over an extended period of time, which he planned to put toward his daughter's education. Id. These arguments sound in substantive error because they concern the amount of the fine that the district court imposed. See Sutton, 520 F.3d at 1262 (Reasonableness includes a... substantive component concerning the length of the sentence actually imposed.). We apply a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for sentences imposed within the correctly calculated advisory guideline range. United States v. Galloway, 509 F.3d 1246, 1251 (10th Cir. 2007). Sentence is broadly defined to include not just terms of imprisonment, but also terms of probation and fines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3551(b) (An individual found guilty of an offense shall be sentenced ... to ... (1) a term of probation ...; (2) a fine ...; or (3) a term of imprisonment....); United States v. Story, 635 F.3d 1241, 1246 (10th Cir.2011) (The court [in United States v. Manzella, 475 F.3d 152 (3d Cir.2007),] found the Sentencing Reform Act uses the term `sentence' broadly to refer to many types of punishment, including imprisonment.... [Section] 3551 ... provides that a convicted defendant may be sentenced to a fine, a term of probation, or a term of imprisonment....); United States v. McMillan, 106 F.3d 322, 324 (10th Cir.1997) (The Sentencing Guidelines clearly include fines as a type of criminal sentence.); see also United States v. Doe, 617 F.3d 766, 771 (3d Cir.2010) (`[I]mprisonment' is merely one form of sentencing, whereas a `sentence' might include other things such as fines, restitution, or supervised release.), cert. denied, 79 U.S.L.W. 3696 (2011); In re Sealed Case, 573 F.3d 844, 851 (D.C.Cir. 2009) ([I]mposition of a sentence [is] a broader concept that encompasses imprisonment as well as probation and fines.); Manzella, 475 F.3d at 158 (The terms `sentence' and `imprisonment' in the Sentencing Reform Act are different.... `Sentence' has [a] broad meaning. It includes many types of possible punishment, only one of which is `imprisonment.'); United States v. Sotelo, 94 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1996) (The authorized types of sentences... include the staples of punishment  a term of imprisonment, probation, and fines.). Accordingly, because we presume that sentences within the Guidelines are reasonable, and a fine is merely one type of sentence available to the district court, we will presume that a fine imposed within the Guidelines range is reasonable. Cf. United States v. McBride, 633 F.3d 1229, 1232-33 (10th Cir.2011) (holding that the presumption of reasonableness ... [applicable to] within-guidelines sentences imposed upon conviction ... is also appropriate in reviewing a revocation-of-supervised-release sentence within the range suggested by the Commission's policy statements). Moreover, because a Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable, it follows that a below-guideline sentence is also presumptively reasonable against an attack by a defendant claiming that the sentence is too high. United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643 F.3d 783, 788 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Liddell, 543 F.3d 877, 885 (7th Cir.2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, a below-Guidelines fine will be presumed reasonable on appeal against a defendant's challenge to the fine amount. Here, the Guidelines recommended that Mr. Perez-Jiminez pay a fine in the range of $4000 to $40,000. The district court imposed a fine on Mr. Perez-Jiminez of $2000, well below the bottom of his Guidelines range for fines. Thus, Mr. Perez-Jiminez's sentence (i.e., fine) receives a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness on appeal against his challenge that it is unreasonably harsh. Mr. Perez-Jiminez fails to overcome that presumption. Mr. Perez-Jiminez's argument that his $2000 fine was unnecessary and excessive because the parties both argued that no fine should be imposed, and the probation office recommended only a $1,000 fine, Aplt. Opening Br. at 25, reflects, at most, a difference of opinion between the parties and the district court about what an appropriate fine should be. It does not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a $2000 fine. Nor has Mr. Perez-Jiminez carried his burden to show that he lacks the ability to pay the fine imposed. The PSR reflects, and the district court noted, that Mr. Perez-Jiminez had $5000 in his prison account. Moreover, the uncontested facts in the PSR show that Mr. Perez-Jiminez worked both before and while being incarcerated, and that he anticipates working again after his release. Further, the PSR indicates that Mr. Perez-Jiminez has no liabilities. See United States v. Klein, 93 F.3d 698, 706 (10th Cir.1996) (Mr. Klein has failed to submit any evidence establishing his inability to find future employment or any evidence indicating current or future financial liabilities which would prevent him from using his future earnings to pay the fine.... [His] reliance on his current insolvency is not enough....). The district court's decision to impose a $2000 fine is also supported by its consideration of the expected costs to the government of any imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a)(6); see U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d)(7) (requiring the district court to consider the expected costs to the government of any term of probation, or term of imprisonment and term of supervised release imposed). The district court explicitly noted that confining this defendant will cost over $2,000 every month, R., Vol. 2, at 55, and the PSR indicates that Mr. Perez-Jiminez's monthly cost of imprisonment is $2,157.88, R., Vol. 3, at 27. Mr. Perez-Jiminez's fine is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness on appeal, which Mr. Perez-Jiminez has failed to rebut. Accordingly, the district court did not substantively err by sentencing Mr. Perez-Jiminez to a $2000 fine.