Opinion ID: 668541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aponte-Vega

Text: 78 Aponte-Vega argues that the district court erred in imposing on him a $100,000 fine despite his representations that he had no money to pay the fine. We disagree. 79 Guidelines 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. Id. Sec. 5E1.2(a). The defendant bears the burden of showing that he is unable to pay the fine. See United States v. Marquez, 941 F.2d 60, 66 (2d Cir.1991). He can satisfy this burden by an independent showing, or by reference to his presentence report. United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 895 (2d Cir.1992). The sentencing court may not base the imposition of a fine on its mere suspicion that the defendant has funds. See, e.g., United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175, 1188 (2d Cir.1993) (imposition of fine vacated where counsel had been appointed to represent defendant because of indigence, PSR had concluded that defendant had no ability to pay, and court simply speculated that defendant could pay); United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d at 895 (same where PSR concluded that defendant appeared to lack ability to pay and government offered no proof to the contrary); United States v. Seminole, 882 F.2d 441, 444 (9th Cir.1989) (same where PSR confirmed that [defendant] was indigent and recommended against the imposition of a fine). The court, however, is surely not required to accept uncritically a representation by the defendant that he has no assets. United States v. Marquez, 941 F.2d at 66. 80 In the present case, the PSR prepared on Aponte-Vega stated, in pertinent part, that Aponte-Vega 81 reported that he has forfeited all of his cash and property to the Government. The defendant stated that the house located ... [in] Florida is in his wife's name and had a value of approximately $65,000 but was destroyed during the hurricane disaster this year forcing his wife and children to reside with relatives in Kendall, Florida. The defendant did not submit any additional financial information. 82 The PSR did not, however, conclude that Aponte-Vega lacked the ability to pay a fine. 83 Nor did Aponte-Vega submit evidence of indigence thereafter. Indeed, at the sentencing hearing, he stated, through his court-appointed attorney, that he wishe[d] to retain counsel for this sentencing and for the appeal. (Aponte-Vega Sentencing Transcript at 2 (emphasis added).) While ultimately counsel was not retained, the fact that Aponte-Vega was contemplating such a move suggested that he was not without assets. 84 At sentencing, the district court ruled that Aponte-Vega had failed to show his inability to pay any fine, stating as follows: 85 The statute also calls for a potential fine, it says from $25,000 to $4 million. My understanding is that most of your ill-gotten goods have now been forfeited to the government in connection with their forfeiture program. I will impose a fine of $100,000 just in case anything is left over. 86 (Id. 6.) The possibility that there might be [some]thing ... left over was not mere speculation, given the indication that Aponte-Vega had sufficient assets to consider hiring an attorney of his own choosing. 87 There being no evidence of indigence other than Aponte-Vega's own self-serving statements that he was without assets, we cannot say that the court erred in rejecting those statements.