Court Opinion

ID: 9396312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-20 21:00:21.227655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.055868
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4373      Doc: 46         Filed: 05/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-4373

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JORDAN COLE LAWS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Ashville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00076-MOC-WCM-1)

        Submitted: October 3, 2022                                        Decided: May 19, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: William R. Terpening, TERPENING LAW, PLLC, Charlotte, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4373       Doc: 46        Filed: 05/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jordan Cole Laws pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of child

        pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Laws contends that the district

        court erroneously determined that he was non-indigent and thereby erred in imposing a

        mandatory $5,000 special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3014. We affirm.

               Section 3014(a) provides that, “in addition to the assessment imposed under [18

        U.S.C. §] 3013, the [district] court shall assess an amount of $5,000 on any non-indigent

        person . . . convicted of [enumerated] offense[s],” including, as here, possession of child

        pornography. § 3014(a)(3). The $5,000 assessment “shall . . . be collected in the manner

        that fines are collected in criminal cases.” § 3014(f); see 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1) (“A

        person sentenced to pay a fine or other monetary penalty . . . shall make such payment

        immediately, unless, in the interest of justice, the court provides for payment on a date

        certain or in installments.”).

               Laws bore the burden of showing that he was indigent. See United States v. Kelley,

        861 F.3d 790, 800 n.5, 801 (8th Cir. 2017). We review for clear error the district court’s

        factual finding that Laws was non-indigent and review de novo “[w]hether the district court

        applied the correct legal standard in assessing [Laws’] non-indigence.” United States v.

        Graves, 908 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 2018); see Kelley, 861 F.3d at 801. “Under the clear

        error standard, we will only reverse if left with the definite and firm conviction that a

        mistake has been committed.” United States v. Doctor, 958 F.3d 226, 234 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4373       Doc: 46         Filed: 05/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               Laws correctly notes that the district court found he was indigent at the time of

        sentencing. However, as Laws recognizes on appeal, district courts may also “consider a

        defendant’s future earnings potential when determining his ability to pay an assessment

        under” § 3014(a). See United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670, 675 (4th Cir. 2020).

        Instead, Laws contends that the record did not support the district court’s finding that Laws

        would ever have the ability to pay the assessment.

               We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not clearly err

        in imposing an assessment under § 3014(a). Although Laws did not graduate from high

        school and does not have a significant employment history, the district court found that

        Laws appeared able-bodied and, as Laws argued in seeking lenience, that he intended to

        obtain his high school equivalency degree while in prison. Furthermore, the district court

        allowed Laws to make $50 monthly payments toward the $5,000 assessment without

        interest, which provides Laws with a significant period of time to pay the assessment. In

        light of these facts, we are not “left with the definite and firm conviction” that the district

        court made a mistake in imposing the assessment under § 3014(a). Doctor, 958 F.3d at

        234 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      3