Court Opinion

ID: 9487847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:27:52.929674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:30.746399
License: Public Domain

GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with parts II and III of the opinion of the court. I am not able to agree with the conclusion that a district court can assess an “additional” fine for costs under U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(i) though no punitive fine has been assessed under § 5E1.2(c). I would follow the decisions, mentioned in the majority opinion, of the Tenth, First and Fifth circuits, U.S. v. Labat, 915 F.2d 603, 607 (10th Cir.1990), U.S. v. Pineda, 981 F.2d 569, 576 (1st Cir.1992), and U.S. v. Fair, 979 F.2d. 1037, 1042 (5th Cir.1992) (relying on “the plain language” of § 5E1.2(i)), and now the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. v. Norman, 3 F.3d 368, 369-70 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1102, 127 L.Ed.2d 414 (1994), holding that no cost-fine can be imposed where there has been no punitive fine. See also U.S. v. Corral, 964 F.2d 83, 84 (1st Cir.1992) (“If defendant cannot pay a punitive fine, there is no basis for expecting that he will be able to pay for the expenses of supervised release. Imposition of such a sanction would be meaningless and result in unnecessary record-keeping.”). In Pineda the defendant did not raise the issue; the government suggested the error, and the court agreed with that suggestion.
In Labat the Tenth Circuit relied upon both the ground of simple logic and a plain reading of the language of § 5E1.2, plus the dictionary meaning of “additional,” plus the Sentencing Commission’s own explanation.
*331Mr. Labat’s two-step reading of the guidelines, however, makes sense both on grounds of simple logic and a plain reading of the language of this section.6 ' Under § 5E1.2, a fine must be imposed unless subparagraph (f) is satisfied. Although (f) is not mandatory, it makes no sense to waive the punitive fine and impose the ‘additional ’ fine.
Indeed, a fine is a fine,7 and if a defendant is indigent for purposes of one, he must be indigent for purposes of the other. Moreover, fundamental semantics dictates that a subparagraph (i) fine cannot be ‘additional,’ unless it augments another fine. The guideline simply permits no other reading. Unfortunately, the district court seemingly gave no consideration to the language of subparagraph (i) and, as a result, misapplied § 5E1.2 of the guidelines.
Labat, 915 F.2d at 605.
It seems to me to make evident — and commendable — sense for the Sentencing Commission to have thought that if a defendant is indigent and unable to pay a punitive fine he is also unable to pay a cost-fine. The Commission may have viewed imposition of a punitive fine as a threshold matter to be given first consideration, with eligibility for a cost-fine to have a field of operation only when the threshold has been passed. Moreover, it is not for us to second guess the Sentencing Commission and confect what judges think is a common sense conclusion, when the Commission may have thought otherwise and appears to have thought otherwise. One must note the irony that this court says its view is the “common sense” conclusion, while Labat thought the contrary view was “simple logic.” In that situation I would follow what the Commission has said rather than speculating that it could not possibly have meant what it said, and,- if we are wrong, the Commission could straighten it out.
It is suggested that a punitive fine of zero dollars, which, of course, is not a fine, supports an “additional” fine because additional means adding two numbers together and zero is a number. See U.S. v. Turner, 998 F.2d 534 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 639, 126 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993), from which this was unearthed. The New Yorker of a quieter and gentler time would have had a field day with this exercise of “The Legal Mind At Work,” as would Noah Webster.

. ‘Additional is defined as ‘existing or coming by way of addition.’ Webster's Third International Dictionary, p. 24 (1981).

. See The Sentencing Commission's 'Questions Most Frequently Asked About The Sentencing Guidelines,' Question #24:
Is the cost of imprisonment and supervision considered a fine?
Answer: Yes. The guidelines provide that the court shall order a fine within the guideline fine range and the court ‘shall impose an additional fine amount that is at least sufficient to pay the cost to the government of any imprisonment, probation, or supervised release ordered' (emphasis added). Of course, the guideline fine and the costs of imprisonment/supervision fine cannot total more than the maximum fine provided by statute. (See § 5E1.2(i).)
We note this publication contains the disclaimer that the information does not 'necessarily represent the official position of the Commission, should not be considered definitive, and is not binding upon the Commission, the court or the parties in any case.’