USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-