Court Opinion

ID: 994360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:21:58.366621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:47.299504
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                 No. 96-4644

CLINTON GREEN, a/k/a Blue,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-97)

Submitted: January 28, 1998

Decided: March 13, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Nathan H. Hicks, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Monica K. Schwartz,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Clinton Green appeals from the sentence imposed by the district
court upon his conviction for possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). Green contends that
the district court erred in not considering his financial needs when it
imposed a fine in the amount of $4000. For the reasons that follow,
we affirm.

In January 1996, Green was sentenced to 168 months imprison-
ment and an $8000 fine after a jury convicted him of one count of
possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine. This court affirmed
Green's conviction and sentence. See United States v. Green, No. 96-
4066, 1996 WL 698066 (4th Cir. Dec. 6, 1996) (unpublished). On
motion of the government for a reduction of sentence based on sub-
stantial assistance, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), the district court
reduced Green's sentence to 84 months imprisonment and reduced his
fine to $4000. Green contends that the district court failed to make
specific factual determinations with respect to his ability to pay the
$4000 fine during the period of his incarceration and during the term
of his supervised release.

Because Green failed to object to the imposition of the fine, either
at his first sentencing or at the hearing on the Government's Rule 35
motion, we review his claim only for plain error. See United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). A district court is required to
consider certain factors, including the defendant's ability to pay,
before imposing a fine. See 18 U.S.C.A.§ 3572 (West Supp. 1997);
United States v. Taylor, 984 F.2d 618, 621 (4th Cir. 1993). However,
where, as here, the district court bases its decision on a presentence
report which includes the Defendant's personal financial statement
and on the projected income to be earned by a defendant while in
prison, the district court is not required to "state[ ] in so many words"

                     2
that the defendant will have the ability to pay the fine while serving
his sentence. See Taylor, 984 F.2d at 622 (holding that a $2000 fine
imposed upon a defendant with "no income, assets or financial obliga-
tions" was adequately supported by the district court's conclusion that
income would be earned through the Inmate Financial Responsibility
Program).

Accordingly, the district court did not commit plain error by failing
to make specific factual findings with respect to Green's ability to pay
the fine while serving his sentence. Therefore, we affirm. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3