United States v. Brady Alsup
707 F. App'x 837
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Brady D. Alsup pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) and received 63 months’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine (below-Guidelines imprisonment, within-Guidelines fine).
- Alsup appealed only the imposition of the $10,000 fine, arguing he lacks the ability to pay.
- The presentence report (PSR) listed Alsup as owning 109.5 acres of land and nine vehicles (seven with a combined net value of about $165,000) and noted he ran his own business pre-arrest.
- Alsup objected to valuations of two vehicles but presented no competent rebuttal evidence to the PSR’s financial findings.
- The district court adopted the PSR’s findings and concluded Alsup had the ability to pay the fine, including by monthly installments after release.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and reasonableness of fines for abuse of discretion and affirmed the fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alsup proved inability to pay a mandatory fine | Alsup: lacks ability to pay $10,000 fine (vehicle valuations overstated; limited income) | Government: PSR shows substantial assets and income prospects; Alsup offered no competent rebuttal | Court: Alsup failed to meet burden; PSR findings plausible; fine upheld |
| Whether PSR required further inquiry when defendant objected | Alsup: objections to vehicle values show PSR is unreliable | Government: general PSR presumptively reliable absent competent rebuttal | Court: objections alone are not competent rebuttal; district court may adopt PSR findings |
| Whether $10,000 fine was an abuse of discretion | Alsup: fine constitutes an undue burden given finances | Government: within-Guidelines fine presumed reasonable; installment plan mitigates burden | Court: imposition not an abuse of discretion; presumption of reasonableness applies |
| Standard of review for factual findings and fine reasonableness | Alsup: N/A (challenged application) | Government: factual findings reviewed for clear error; fine for abuse of discretion | Court: applied clear-error to facts and abuse-of-discretion to fine; upheld decision |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of fines)
- United States v. Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1991) (fine may be imposed even if it creates a significant financial burden)
- United States v. Magnuson, 307 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2002) (defendant bears burden to prove inability to pay fine)
- United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2015) (PSR information presumed reliable absent competent rebuttal)
- United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2014) (objections to PSR are not competent rebuttal evidence)
- United States v. Longstreet, 603 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2010) (clear-error review of district court’s factual findings)
- United States v. Pacheco-Alvarado, 782 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2015) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines fines)