Opinion ID: 167798
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: O ther challenges to the imposition of a fine.

Text: In addition to her Booker argument, Torres also asserts that the district court abused its discretion in imposing any fine at all. 6 W e disagree. 6 On appeal, Torres does not specifically challenge the amount of the fine imposed, but only the fact that the district court imposed any fine at all. Therefore, Torres’s argument that the district court erred in considering U.S.S.G . § 5E1.2(d)’s factors is unavailing. Those factors are relevant in determining the amount of a fine to be imposed. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d); United States v. Foote, 413 F.3d 1240, 1252 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting § 5E1.2(d)’s factors inform the district court’s decision as to w hat the amount of the fine should be); see also United States v. Corace, 146 F.3d 51, 56 (2d Cir. 1998). In any event, it is clear that the district court considered these factors before imposing the $7,000 fine. The evidence before the district court addressed these issues. See United States v. Doyan, 909 F.2d 412, 415 (10th Cir. 1990) (noting record suggested that district court gave appropriate consideration to defendant’s “specific circumstances” where the issue of his “financial limitations . . . was raised both in the presentence report and during the sentencing hearing”). -7-
This court reviews the imposition of a fine for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Deters, 184 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 1999). Torres bears the burden of proving “both h[er] present and future inability to pay.” Brown, 314 F.3d at 1228. This court will “reject a district court’s findings regarding an ability to pay a fine only if they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Trujillo, 136 F.3d 1388, 1398 (10th Cir. 1998). Further, the district court is not required to make specific factual findings before imposing a fine, so long as “the record reflects the basis for the imposition of the fine.” Id.; see also United States v. W ashington-W illiams, 945 F.2d 325, 328 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting “§ 5E1.2 merely requires that the record reflect the district court’s consideration of the pertinent factors prior to imposing the fine”).
To avoid any fine under § 5E1.2, Torres had to prove that “(1) [s]he is not able and, even with the use of a reasonable installment schedule, is not likely to become able to pay all or part of the fine required by the preceding provisions, or (2) imposition of a fine would unduly burden the defendant’s dependents.” Id. § 5E1.2(e). Torres failed to make that showing. Instead, there is plenty of evidence to support the district court’s finding that Torres can pay some sort of -8- fine. 7 First, according to her own testimony, she owns property in M exico valued at $10,000. 8 Second, the record indicates that she possesses professional skills as a nurse’s aide that give her the future ability to pay some sort of fine. Therefore, because there is evidence indicating that Torres has both the present and future ability to pay some fine, 9 the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a fine. 7 For this reason, we need not consider Torres’s assertion that, because the PSR indicated that she could not pay a fine, the burden of proof should have shifted to the Government to prove that she could pay a fine. Torres also asserts that the district court had to explain why it rejected the PSR’s recommendation against a fine. To the extent that this assertion is true, the district court’s reasons are clear. In particular, the district court noted that the PSR credited what Torres’s mother told the probation officer preparing the PSR–that the mother, and not Torres, owned the property in M exico. The district court, however, was unwilling to credit this assertion over Torres’s own testimony given at sentencing that she, and not her mother, owned the M exican property. Furthermore, after sentencing, defense counsel apparently sent the district court a letter acknowledging that it was Torres, and not the mother, who actually bought the property in M exico, using money her mother gave her. 8 Although Torres now disputes this, she can hardly fault the district court for crediting her testimony. 9 Again, Torres has not specifically challenged the amount of the fine imposed, but instead has argued that the district court abused its discretion in imposing any fine at all. -9-