Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Velazquez, 95-1482 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1482 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 16, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Defendant, Appellant.*Senior Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by, designation. rather, it was made clear in, the plea agreement and at the sentencing hearing that the, maximum fine to which appellant was exposed $250, 000.00 was entirely separate from the amount to be forfeited.
USCA1 Opinion









October 17, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




____________________


No. 95-1482

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

ANGEL VELAZQUEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

ERRATA SHEET



The opinion of this court issued on October 16, 1995 is amended
as follows:

On cover sheet, change "Watson, Senior Circuit Judge," to ______________________
"*Watson, Senior Judge,". ____________

*Senior Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.






















October 16, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 95-1482

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

ANGEL VELAZQUEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
*Watson, Senior Judge, ____________
and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________

____________________

Graham A. Castillo Pagan on brief for appellant. ________________________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Edwin O. Vazquez, _______________ __________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa on brief _______________________
for appellee.


____________________


____________________

*Senior Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.














Per Curiam. Appellant pled guilty to violation of __________

31 U.S.C. 5316 and 5322, failing to report the

transportation of more than $10,000 in United States currency

from the United States. At the sentencing hearing, the

district court reviewed the plea agreement with appellant,

and appellant indicated that he understood the terms of the

agreement as well as the maximum penalties for the offense.

He now argues that the $500.00 fine imposed by the district

court was excessive and violates the "Excessive Fines Clause"

of the Eighth Amendment.

I. _

The agreed-to facts, as reflected in the "Plea and

Forfeiture Agreement," indicate that appellant, about to

board an airplane from Puerto Rico to Santo Domingo,

Dominican Republic, was selected for interview by U.S.

Customs agents. Appellant was asked whether he was

transporting over $10,000.00 in U.S. currency. He answered

that he was transporting only $1,200.00. A search of his

bags revealed $25,258.00.

Appellant agreed to plead guilty1 and indicated on

the plea agreement his understanding of the penalties he

faced -- a term of imprisonment of not more than five years,

a fine of up to $250,000.00, and a three-year term of




____________________

1. As part of the plea agreement, the Government agreed to
request the dismissal of Count Two of the Indictment, which
charged appellant with knowingly making a false statement in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.













supervised release. He agreed, too, to forfeit to the

Government 25 percent of the $25,258.00 he was found

transporting ($6,315.00) and to pay a special monetary

assessment of $50.00. Finally, he indicated that he

understood that the court was not bound by the plea

agreement.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court

reviewed the plea agreement with appellant. After

satisfactory response, the court sentenced appellant to a

three-year term of probation, and ordered a fine of $500.00,

a $50.00 special monetary assessment, and the above-described

forfeiture.2 Appellant paid the fine and the special

assessment within a week of the sentencing hearing.

II. __

Appellant claims that the fine imposed in his case

violates the "Excessive Fines Clause" of the Eighth

Amendment. He does not argue that the court was without

statutory power to impose the fine, that he is unable to pay

the fine, or that there are any double jeopardy or due

process implications. His legal challenge to the fine boils

down to this: since he is already forfeiting a substantial



____________________

2. Under the relevant sentencing guidelines, appellant had
an offense level of 8. At this level, the court could have
imposed a term of 0 to 6 months' imprisonment and a fine of
$1,000.00 to $10,000.00. U.S.S.G. Ch. 5 Pt.A; 5E1.2(c)(3).


-3-













amount of money to expiate his wrongdoing, the addition of

another $500.00 is excessive.

A party bringing an Eighth Amendment excessive fine

claim must show, after a "threshold comparison" between the

gravity of criminal conduct and the severity of the penalty,

an "initial inference of gross disproportionality." United ______

States v. Bucuvalas, 970 F.2d 937, 946 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. ______ _________ ____

denied, 113 S. Ct. 1382 (1993). We can perceive no ______

disproportionality or unfairness here. Cf. United States v. ___ _____________

Pilgrim Market Corp., 944 F.2d 14, 22 (1st Cir. 1991). ______________________

Appellant has no quarrel with the forfeiture of 25% of the

unreported funds, but only with the imposition of the $500.00

fine. That additional3 sum, considered even in conjunction

with the forfeited amount, was well below the statutory and

guideline maximums and did not transgress the Excessive Fines

Clause.

The judgment is affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________









____________________

3. There was never any promise or understanding that the
appellant's total exposure was 25 percent of the amount at _____
issue, or $6,315.00, compare United States v. Maling, 942 _______ ________________________
F.2d 808, 811 (1st Cir. 1991); rather, it was made clear in
the plea agreement and at the sentencing hearing that the
maximum fine to which appellant was exposed -- $250,000.00 --
was entirely separate from the amount to be forfeited.

-4-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer