United States v. John Perez
693 F. App'x 364
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant John Anthony Perez pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual exploitation of a child under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 and received 750 months imprisonment plus concurrent 20-year supervised-release terms.
- The district court imposed three additional special assessments of $5,000 each under 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a)(3) (total $15,000) on non-indigent persons convicted of child-exploitation offenses.
- Perez argued on appeal that he is indigent and the additional assessments therefore constitute illegal punishment under Rutledge v. United States.
- Perez did not raise the claim in the district court, but the Fifth Circuit treated the merits and found no error regardless of preservation.
- The district court adopted the presentence report, which included financial information showing Perez’s net worth; the court’s adoption was treated as an implicit finding of non-indigency.
- The court rejected Perez’s attacks based on earlier magistrate findings regarding counsel, the non-imposition of a fine, an incorrect offense reference in the PSR, and waiver of interest on restitution — finding none undermined the non-indigency determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of three $5,000 special assessments under § 3014 was illegal because Perez is indigent | Perez: He is indigent; assessments thus unlawful punishment | Government: § 3014 applies to non-indigent offenders; district court implicitly found Perez non-indigent by adopting PSR financials | Court: Affirmed — implicit finding of non-indigency valid; assessments properly imposed |
| Whether failure to make an express non-indigency finding invalidates assessments | Perez: District court needed an explicit finding | Government: No statute or precedent requires express finding; adoption of PSR suffices | Court: Implicit finding via PSR adoption is adequate |
| Whether earlier magistrate rulings (for counsel eligibility) or non-imposition of fine contradict non-indigency | Perez: Earlier preliminary financial determinations and absence of fine show indigency | Government: Magistrate addressed preliminary counsel eligibility; PSR provides fuller net-worth information; fine range exceeds assessments | Court: Those points do not show error or undermine non-indigency finding |
| Whether clerical/PSR errors (wrong offense reference) or restitution-interest waiver cast doubt on statutory application | Perez: PSR error and interest waiver raise doubt about court’s awareness and burden analysis | Government: Courts are presumed to know and apply the law; PSR correctly cited statute; Perez gave no concrete interest figures | Court: No reversible error; presumption that court applied statute correctly; argument unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (addressing financial assessments and indigency-related sentencing issues)
- United States v. Teuschler, 689 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard that no error exists to review when defendant shows none)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2008) (preservation and review principles in sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 388 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2004) (adoption of PSR can constitute an implicit factual finding)
- Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) (courts are presumed to know and apply the law)
- United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2006) (arguments regarding financial burdens require concrete figures)
- Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1986) (federal appellate review standards)