United States v. Cifuentes Riascos

Opinion

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October 10, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-