Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Cifuentes Riascos, 96-1035 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1035 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 10, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: , Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Warren Vazquez and Nelson, _____________ ______________ ______, Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. Quiles, __________ _______________, Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.guidelines to do so.plain error.
USCA1 Opinion












October 10, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1035

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

HENRY CIFUENTES-RIASCOS,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Benico Sanchez Rivera, Federal Public Defender, and Miguel A.A. ______________________ ____________
Nogueras-Castro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on brief for _______________
appellant.
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Warren Vazquez and Nelson _____________ ______________ ______
Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. Quiles __________ _______________
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. ________


____________________


____________________















Per Curiam. Defendant was convicted of unlawful __________

re-entry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.

1326(b)(2). He was sentenced to 100 months imprisonment and

fined $500. On appeal he argues for the first time that the

district court erred in imposing the fine where the defendant

was financially unable to pay. This objection not having

been made below, it is reviewed for plain error only. See ___

United States v. Peppe, 80 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 1996). ______________ _____

After careful review of the parties' briefs and the record,

we find no error.

The sentencing guidelines provide that a fine must

be imposed within a specified range unless a defendant is

unable to pay. See U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(a)(b). When a ___

sentencing court finds a defendant unable to pay the fine

established by the guidelines, "the court may impose a lesser

fine or waive the fine." U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(f). Here, the

district court expressly found that, based on the defendant's

financial condition, "the imposition of a fine within the

required range is not viable," and, instead of imposing a

fine within the applicable range of $10,000 to $100,000,

fined the defendant $500. The court was authorized by the

guidelines to do so. See U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(f). There was no ___

plain error. Cf. United States v. Rivera, 68 F.3d 5, 8 (1st ___ _____________ ______

Cir. 1995) (no plain error in imposing fine well below





-2-













guideline minimum where defendant lacked apparent source of

funds).

Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___















































-3-






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