UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
___________________________
No. 95-10289
Summary Calendar
___________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
NOEL R. SCHMITZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(3:94-CR-00389)
____________________________________________________
December 20, 1995
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
In this direct criminal appeal defendant Schmitz argues that
the district court erred in imposing a $2,000 fine for two reasons:
(1) he has no ability to pay the fine; (2) the court imposed a cost
of incarceration fine without first imposing a punitive fine.
United States v. Fair, 979 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1992). Schmitz is
young, in good health and has a high school education. For the
past two years he worked as a warehouse supervisor earning $1,800
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of
opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide
particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law
imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
per month. He, has ample future earning capacity to justify
imposition of this fine. United States v. O'Banion, 943 F.2d 1422
5th Cir. 1991).
Our review of the record reveals that the defendant made no
contemporaneous objection to the fine on grounds that it represents
a cost of incarceration fine and no punitive fine had been imposed.
This fine was fair and reasonable and does not result in manifest
injustice. The district court did not commit plain error in
imposing this fine. We therefore affirm the district court's
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2