United States v. Christopher Fowler, 956 F.3d 431

Fowler had a 2010 conviction for receipt/distribution and possession of child pornography; released to 10 years supervised release and later reoffended by accessing child pornography via a peer-to-peer app in 2016.
In 2018 Fowler pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography; plea agreement included a broad appellate waiver but did not mention the $5,000 special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3014.
At plea colloquy the prosecutor stated the $5,000 assessment applied but could be waived for indigency; defense counsel indicated he expected Fowler to be deemed indigent.
The PSR noted Fowler had been appointed counsel (financial affidavit indicating indigency), listed prior education and work, but did not make a finding on indigency for § 3014.
At sentencing the court imposed 120 months for the possession conviction, a consecutive 36 months for supervised-release violation, and a $5,000 § 3014 assessment without making any express findings on Fowler’s ability to pay; defense did not object to the assessment.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit vacated the $5,000 assessment and remanded for an indigency determination, and affirmed the 36‑month supervised‑release sentence (finding the court did not rely on the stricken, uncorroborated molestation allegation).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of appellate waiver as to $5,000 § 3014 assessment	Fowler: assessment not mentioned in plea; challenge not waived	Government: broad waiver of appeal rights bars challenge	Waiver did not bar challenge; plea did not contemplate the $5,000 assessment
Plain‑error review of imposition of $5,000 without indigency finding	Fowler: court failed to address indigency/ability to pay; record does not show non‑indigency	Government: either waived by plea or record supports non‑indigency	Plain error; vacated assessment and remanded for determination of indigency
Whether court relied on uncorroborated molestation allegation in upward variance	Fowler: court considered the allegation and therefore used an impermissible factor	Government: court struck the allegation and explicitly said it did not rely on it; sentence based on possession/victimization	Affirmed: court disclaimed reliance on allegation and did not abuse discretion in sentencing

United States v. Smith, 344 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2003) (interpreting scope of appellate‑waiver clauses)
United States v. Droganes, 728 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2013) (refusal to extend an appellate waiver to issues not contemplated in plea)
United States v. Shepherd, 922 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2019) (district court must ensure defendant is not indigent before imposing § 3014 assessment)
United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2019) (courts may infer consideration of ability to pay from the record; detailed findings not always required)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (plain‑error review standard)
United States v. Gonzales, 765 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (appellate courts should accept district court’s statements that excluded material was not considered)