[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1146
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO CORDOVA GONZALEZ,
a/k/a POTI, a/k/a EL VIEJO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.
Carlos Vazquez Alvara, with whom Benicio Sanchez Rivera, Federal
Public Defender, and Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr., Assistant Federal Public
Defender, were on brief for appellant.
Nelson Perez Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior
Litigation Counsel and Edwin O. Vazquez Berrios, Assistant United
States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.
November 19, 1996
Per Curiam. In his appeal from his sentence,
appellant contends that the court committed plain error in
imposing a $15,000 fine. There was no plain error. The
presentence investigation report, while it did not recommend
a fine because of defendant's presumed inability to pay it,
also indicated that defendant had assets of approximately
$21,500 and, in addition, any moneys that he may receive if
his ex-wife's bankruptcy case were resolved. We have held
that, under the relevant Guidelines, "a fine is the rule
and it is the defendant's burden to demonstrate that his case
is an exception." United States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 620
(1st Cir. 1993); see also United States Sentencing
Commission, Guidelines Manual, 5E1.2(a) (Nov. 1995). The
amount the court imposed was the minimum fine within the
applicable guideline range. In the present circumstances, we
cannot say the district court's imposition of a fine
constituted plain error, as we would need to conclude in
order to overturn the district court's action, given
appellant's failure to object. See United States v. Dietz,
950 F.2d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 1991) ("We have repeatedly ruled,
in connection with sentencing as in other contexts, that
arguments not seasonably addressed to the trial court may not
be raised for the first time in an appellate venue.") If it
turns out that appellant should truly lack the assets needed
to pay the fine when required to do so, he can, of course,
-2-
offer his inability to pay as an excuse then. See 18 U.S.C.
3569 (1985 & Supp. 1996); see also Tate v. Short, 401 U.S.
395, 398 (1971).
Affirmed.
-3-