UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 10/3/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 96-7037
v. (E. Dist. of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. CR-95-36-S)
JEFFREY LYN PIERCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
Having examined the briefs and the appellate record, this panel determines
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Mr. Pierce pleaded guilty to racketeering, conspiracy to defraud, and
forfeiture. As part of the sentence, the district court fined Mr. Pierce $15,000 and
ordered payment in $450 monthly installments beginning 90 days after release
from custody. Mr. Pierce appeals the fine. He argues that the district court failed
to consider various factors bearing upon ability to pay, as mandated by Section
5E1.2(d) of the Sentencing Guidelines.
This court normally reviews appeals of fines under an abuse of discretion
standard. United States v. Ballard, 16 F.3d 1110, 1114 (10th Cir.), cert. denied,
114 S. Ct. 2762 (1994).
The Guidelines mandate only that the district court consider 5E1.2(d)
factors, not that it make any express findings. See United States v. Sneed, 34 F.3d
1570, 1585 (10th Cir. 1993). Compliance with the Guidelines merely requires the
record to reflect that the district court considered the pertinent factors before it
imposed the fine. Id.
In this case, the district court made it amply clear that it had considered Mr.
Pierce’s circumstances. Addressing Mr. Pierce, the court said, “This fine is
imposed based on your current financial profile and your projected earning
ability.” Furthermore, the court adopted by reference “all relevant factual matters
set forth in the Presentence Investigation by reference.” The Presentence Report
included a detailed account of Mr. Pierce’s financial situation and a statement that
-2-
Mr. Pierce did not have the “funds or liquid assets to pay a substantial fine at this
time, without provisions made for a payment plan.”
Accordingly, the district court imposed a fine at the low end of the $6,000
to $60,000 Guideline range, granted a 90-day grace period, and implemented a
reasonable monthly installment plan.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. Mr. Pierce’s sentence is
therefore AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-