Opinion ID: 705069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fine and Supervised Release.

Text: 42 As previously noted, the resentencing proceedings were directed almost exclusively to the apportionment issue. There was one brief reference to supervised release, and no mention of a fine, but the life term of supervised release and $2,000,000 fine were included in the subsequent judgment of conviction. 43 The government concedes that the instructions in Stevens I regarding these issues were not followed on the initial remand, and we accordingly reiterate them on this remand. As to the fine, Stevens I ruled that because USSG Sec. 5E1.2 requires a sentencing court to  '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. at 1188 (quoting USSG Sec. 5E1.2(a)), the court must afford the defendant at least a minimal opportunity to show that he lacks the ability to pay the fine proposed by the court. Id. (citing United States v. Marquez, 941 F.2d 60, 65-66 (2d Cir.1991)). Thus, on remand, the burden of going forward on this issue will be borne by Stevens. With respect to the imposition of lifetime supervised release, we repeat that this represented a substantial departure from the guideline range of four-to-five years and required the district judge to state the reasons both for departure and for the extent of the departure. Stevens I, 985 F.2d at 1190. 44