United States v. Akinrosotu
637 F.3d 165
2d Cir.2011Background
- Defendant convicted in 1994 for drug offenses: conspiracy to import heroin, conspiracy to distribute heroin, and importation of heroin.
- Judgment in 1996 imposed 365 months imprisonment, five-year supervised release, and a $50,000 fine due immediately under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1).
- Special condition required payment of any fines unpaid at the commencement of supervised release.
- In 2006 defendant, acting pro se, filed for remission of the fine seeking reduced monthly payments under BOP program; the district court denied in 2009.
- This appeal concerns whether § 3583(e)(2) authorizes modification of the fine; the court analyzes authority to modify only the portion unpaid at the start of supervised release.
- Court notes projected release dates and potential non-ripeness of any modification to the full $50,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3583(e)(2) authorizes modifying the fine. | Akinrosotu argues for modification under § 3583(e)(2). | Akinrosotu contends district court has authority to modify the fine. | No; if any, only the amount unpaid at the start of supervised release. |
| Scope of modification under § 3583(e)(2) for pre-supervised-release fines. | Only the unpaid portion at commencement is eligible for modification. | Modification could apply to the entire fine if allowed. | Restriction to the amount remaining unpaid at commencement of supervised release. |
| Ripe consideration of modification given projected release dates. | Modification should be considered regardless of projected release. | Ripeness doctrine may foreclose review until the fine is potentially unpaid. | Appeal dismissed without prejudice as to modifications that would occur after commencement; ripeness concerns noted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ionia Mgmt., S.A., 537 F.Supp.2d 321 (D.Conn.2008) (fines and penalties are independent criminal penalties)
- United States v. Spallone, 399 F.3d 415 (2d Cir.2005) (court may not resentence without mandate or Rule 35/36)
- Simmonds v. INS, 326 F.3d 351 (2d Cir.2003) (ripeness avoidance of unnecessary adjudications)
- Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir.1994) (good-time credits considerations)