Filed: Feb. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-12796 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-12796 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60238-RNS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADELINE NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (February 6, 2014) Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Adeline Nelson appeals the $7,50
Summary: Case: 13-12796 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-12796 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60238-RNS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ADELINE NELSON, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (February 6, 2014) Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Adeline Nelson appeals the $7,500..
More
Case: 13-12796 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12796
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60238-RNS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ADELINE NELSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 6, 2014)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Adeline Nelson appeals the $7,500 fine imposed for conspiring to distribute
Oxycodone and Hydromorphone, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846, and
Case: 13-12796 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 Page: 2 of 3
possessing with intent to distribute Oxycodone and Hydromorphone,
id.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Nelson argues that the fine will “unduly burden [her and]
her dependents.” We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err when it ordered Nelson to pay a $7,500
fine. The Sentencing Guidelines require the district court to impose a fine unless
“the defendant establishes that [she] is unable to pay and is not likely to become
able to pay.” United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2(a) (Nov. 2012).
Nelson admitted, by “fail[ing] to object to [the] allegations of fact in [her
presentence report],” United States v. Wade,
458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir.2006),
that she had ten bank accounts containing more than $61,000; she had earned more
than $30,000 the preceding four years as a medical assistant; and she had received
financial assistance from her family. And Nelson acknowledged that she had
sufficient cash to pay the fine and to retain more than $8,000 in cash and $7,000 in
savings bonds. The district court was entitled to find that Nelson was “able to pay
[the] fine” despite her arguments about her financial obligations to her three
children and an outstanding $14,000 loan from a friend. Although the district court
did not discuss the individual factors used to determine an appropriate fine, see
id.
§ 5E1.2(d); 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a), we “infer without hesitation” that the district
court took those factors into account because it considered Nelson’s presentence
report before imposing her fine. See United States v. Khawaja,
118 F.3d 1454,
2
Case: 13-12796 Date Filed: 02/06/2014 Page: 3 of 3
1459 (11th Cir. 1997). Nelson argues that payment of the fine will leave her
“virtually destitute,” but the undisputed evidence establishes that Nelson can pay
her fine immediately and that her future earnings will be unencumbered.
We AFFIRM Nelson’s sentence.
3