Court Opinion

ID: 2964423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:28.250703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:56.009975
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1146

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                              ANTONIO CORDOVA GONZALEZ,
                             a/k/a POTI, a/k/a EL VIEJO,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                     Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________
         
                                 ____________________

            Carlos Vazquez Alvara,  with whom Benicio Sanchez Rivera,  Federal
            _____________________             ______________________
        Public Defender, and  Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr.,  Assistant Federal Public
                              _____________________
        Defender, were on brief for appellant.
            Nelson Perez  Sosa, Assistant  United States  Attorney, with  whom
            __________________
        Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior
        _____________                          _______________________
        Litigation  Counsel and  Edwin  O. Vazquez  Berrios, Assistant  United
                                 __________________________
        States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  November 19, 1996

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   In  his  appeal  from his  sentence,
                      ___________

            appellant contends  that the  court committed plain  error in

            imposing a  $15,000 fine.   There  was no  plain error.   The

            presentence  investigation report, while it did not recommend

            a fine because  of defendant's presumed inability  to pay it,

            also  indicated that  defendant had  assets of  approximately

            $21,500 and, in addition,  any moneys that he may  receive if

            his  ex-wife's bankruptcy case  were resolved.   We have held

            that, under the relevant  Guidelines, "a fine is the  rule   

            and it is the defendant's burden to demonstrate that his case

            is an exception."  United States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 620
                               _____________    ______

            (1st   Cir.  1993);   see  also   United   States  Sentencing
                                  _________

            Commission, Guidelines  Manual,   5E1.2(a) (Nov.  1995).  The
                        __________________

            amount  the court  imposed was  the minimum  fine within  the

            applicable guideline range.  In the present circumstances, we

            cannot  say  the  district   court's  imposition  of  a  fine

            constituted plain  error,  as we  would need  to conclude  in

            order  to  overturn   the  district  court's   action,  given

            appellant's failure to object.   See United States  v. Dietz,
                                             ___ _____________     _____

            950 F.2d 50, 55  (1st Cir. 1991) ("We have  repeatedly ruled,

            in  connection with  sentencing  as in  other contexts,  that

            arguments not seasonably addressed to the trial court may not

            be raised  for the first time in an appellate venue.")  If it

            turns out that appellant should truly lack the  assets needed

            to pay  the fine when required  to do so, he  can, of course,

                                         -2-

            offer his inability to pay as an excuse then.   See 18 U.S.C.
                                                            ___

              3569  (1985 & Supp. 1996); see also Tate v. Short, 401 U.S.
                                         ________ ____    _____

            395, 398 (1971).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-