Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Ramon Santano Camacho, 972 F.2d 337, 1st Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views4 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding Ramon Santana Camacho's appeal of fines imposed following his conviction for smuggling illegal aliens. The court upheld the $250,000 in fines, finding that the district court had properly considered Camacho's financial resources and ability to pay as required by law. While Camacho lacked present means, the court determined he had skills from running a large smuggling operation that gave hope of future ability to pay. The court also noted remedies if Camacho could not pay and was imprisoned solely for nonpayment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1992-08-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 972 F.2d 337 Docket: 91-2297

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding Ramon Santana Camacho's appeal of fines imposed following his conviction for smuggling illegal aliens. The court upheld the $250,000 in fines, finding that the district court had properly considered Camacho's financial resources and ability to pay as required by law. While Camacho lacked present means, the court determined he had skills from running a large smuggling operation that gave hope of future ability to pay. The court also noted remedies if Camacho could not pay and was imprisoned solely for nonpayment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views4 pages

    United States v. Ramon Santano Camacho, 972 F.2d 337, 1st Cir. (1992)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding Ramon Santana Camacho's appeal of fines imposed following his conviction for smuggling illegal aliens. The court upheld the $250,000 in fines, finding that the district court had properly considered Camacho's financial resources and ability to pay as required by law. While Camacho lacked present means, the court determined he had skills from running a large smuggling operation that gave hope of future ability to pay. The court also noted remedies if Camacho could not pay and was imprisoned solely for nonpayment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    972 F.

    2d 337

    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished


    opinions may be cited only in related cases.
    UNITED STATES, Appellee,
    v.
    Ramon Santano CAMACHO, Defendant, Appellant.
    No. 91-2297.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    First Circuit.
    August 10, 1992

    Appeal from the United States District COurt for the District of Puerto
    Rico
    Ramon Santana Camacho on brief pro se.
    Daniel F. Lopez Romo, United States Attorney, and Edwin O. Vazquez,
    Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
    D. Puerto Rico
    AFFIRMED.
    Before Breyer, Chief Judge, Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam.

    Following his conviction on two counts of bringing an illegal alien into the
    United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A), defendant Ramon
    Santana-Camacho was sentenced to two consecutive terms of five years in
    prison. He also received fines totalling $250,000. As the offenses occurred in
    1986, those fines were imposed pursuant to former 18 U.S.C. 3623(a)
    (repealed as of November 1, 1987). See United States v. Wilfred American
    Educ. Corp., 953 F.2d 717, 719 n.1 (1st Cir. 1992) (reciting statutory history).
    His conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Santana-Camacho, 931
    F.2d 966 (1st Cir. 1991). Defendant thereafter brought a timely motion under

    former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) for correction of sentence, claiming that the fines
    had been illegally imposed. He alleged, inter alia, that the court had failed
    properly to consider his "income, earning capacity, and financial resources," as
    required by 18 U.S.C. 3622(a)(3).1 In particular, he contended (1) that this
    provision necessitated a finding that he was or reasonably would be able to pay
    the fines levied, and (2) that the court's implicit finding in this regard was
    unsupported by the record. From the denial of this motion, defendant now
    appeals.
    2

    We find no error. "There is no abuse of discretion when the court had before it
    information bearing on all the relevant factors, including facts necessary to
    consider imposition of a substantial fine, absent a record showing the court
    refused to consider the section 3622(a) factors." United States v. Weir, 861
    F.2d 542, 545 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1089 (1989). The district
    court here had information pertaining to each of the pertinent criteria, including
    defendant's financial status. The court clearly considered each criterion; in fact,
    it has done so twice, first at sentencing and then in response to the instant
    motion. In balancing those factors, the court acted well within its discretion,
    particularly given defendant's prominent role in the smuggling organization and
    the need to deprive him of illegally obtained gains. And the fact that the fines
    imposed were only half of the statutory maximum reflects an appreciation by
    the court of defendant's financial status. See, e.g., United States v. Pilgrim
    Market Corp., 944 F.2d 14, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).

    We need not decide whether 3622(a) requires the court, not only to consider a
    defendant's financial condition, but to ensure that any fine imposed is
    reasonably consistent with his present or future ability to pay. Assuming
    arguendo that such a requirement can be read into the statute, we think the fines
    here are consistent therewith. To be sure, defendant appears to lack the present
    ability to pay $250,000. The presentence report (PSI) listed his net worth as
    $26,000. Furthermore, contrary to the government's suggestion, the record
    provides little reason to believe that defendant possessed, or had access to,
    substantial additional assets that were not disclosed. Such a finding "must be
    reasonably supported by probative evidence." United States v. Rowland, 906
    F.2d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 1990). Yet the PSI stated there was "no evidence that
    the defendant amassed great quantities of money as a result of his criminal
    activity." Both his trial and appellate counsel were appointed. See U.S.S.G.
    5E1.2, comment (n.3). When arrested, he was renting a $60 per month
    apartment from his niece. And there was nothing in the record otherwise
    suggestive of hidden assets, such as an "extravagant lifestyle," United States v.
    Nazifpour, 944 F.2d 472, 475 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), or "significant
    unexplained expenditures." U.S.S.G. 5E1.2, comment (n.6).

    Nonetheless, as indicated by the reference in 3622(a)(3) to "earning capacity,"


    a defendant's future ability to pay is part of the equation. In contending that he
    has no realistic prospect of paying the fines, defendant points to his selfdescribed work history, which consists principally of construction, masonry and
    factory jobs. He suggests that such work, while not insubstantial, is unlikely to
    yield the level of income that would permit payment of the fines. Yet this
    argument ignores the evidence that defendant created and headed a smuggling
    organization comprising some 160 members, including recruiters, transporters,
    boat captains, and police personnel. Given the skills necessarily entailed in such
    an endeavor, and given defendant's age (46), we think defendant has "at least a
    hope" of being able to pay the fines imposed. United States v. Mahoney, 859
    F.2d 47, 52 (7th Cir. 1988) (restitution order). Should this prediction prove
    faulty, and should the government seek to incarcerate him for nonpayment,
    defendant would have ample administrative remedies at his disposal. See, e.g.,
    United States v. Levy, 897 F.2d 596, 598 (1st Cir. 1990); Santiago v. United
    States, 889 F.2d 371, 373-74 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see also United
    States v. Dominguez, 951 F.2d 412, 416 (1st Cir. 1991) ("an indigent defendant
    cannot be held in prison for failure to pay a fine").

    Affirmed.

    18 U.S.C. 3622(a) provided in relevant part:


    (a) In determining whether to impose a fine and the amount of a fine, the court
    shall consider, in addition to other relevant factors-(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense;
    (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant;
    (3) the defendant's income, earning capacity, and financial resources;
    (4) the burden that the fine will impose upon the defendant, any person who is
    financially dependent on the defendant, or any other person (including a
    government) that would be responsible for the welfare of any person financially
    dependent on the defendant, relative to the burden that alternative punishments
    would impose;
    (5) any pecuniary loss inflicted upon others as a result of the offense;
    (6) whether restitution is ordered and the amount of such restitution;

    (7) the need to deprive the defendant of illegally obtained gains from the
    offense....

    You might also like