Opinion ID: 155119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: fine to cover the costs of supervision

Text: Section § 5E1.2(I) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides, “[S]ubject to the provisions of subsection (f) herein, the court shall impose [a] . . . fine that is at least sufficient to pay the costs to the government of any . . . supervised release ordered.” Subsection (f) reads, -5- If the defendant establishes that (1) 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, the court may impose a lesser fine or waive the fine. Subsection (f) places the burden upon the defendant of establishing that he or she is unable to pay a fine. See United States v. Klein, 93 F.3d 698, 705 (10th Cir. 1996). Hays failed to establish his inability to pay the punitive fine. We review the court's imposition of a fine under an abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Meuli, 8 F.3d 1481, 1487 (10th Cir. 1993). While the Presentencing Report reveals that Hays has no assets, owes child support, and has outstanding debts to a former spouse and the federal government, it also reveals that he has earned over $ 30,000 per year on at least one occasion and has the ability to work after his release from prison. When reviewing for an abuse of discretion, this court will not disturb a trial court’s decision unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the court committed a clear error of judgment. Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d 1499, 1504 (10th Cir. 1994). Given this standard and Hays’ proven ability to earn a significant income, this court determines that the imposition of the $ 7,030.80 fine was not an abuse of discretion. -6- Therefore, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT, Michael R. Murphy