United States v. Jose Pacheco-Alvarado
782 F.3d 213
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Consolidated appeals by Jose Pacheco-Alvarado and Cesar de la Cruz challenging district-court-imposed fines; de la Cruz also appeals an above-Guidelines 60-month prison sentence.
- PSRs for both defendants found no present assets or monthly income and stated it did not appear the defendants had ability to pay fines; district court adopted PSR findings.
- District court nevertheless imposed within-Guidelines fines: $2,500 (Pacheco-Alvarado) and $5,000 (de la Cruz), with monthly payment conditioned on earning prison wages (one‑third of earnings) and post-release installment payments tied to ability to pay.
- Written judgment for de la Cruz mistakenly directed payment of one-half of prison earnings (conflicting with oral pronouncement of one‑third); Pacheco-Alvarado’s written judgment matched oral pronouncement.
- De la Cruz received an upward variance to 60 months (Guidelines range 18–24 months); district court explained variance based on seriousness of drug distribution, illegal reentry, and firearm possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court’s conditional order requiring payment as a proportion of future prison wages improperly intrudes on BOP authority/IFRP | Appellants: court’s order functions as impermissible garnishment and interferes with BOP/IFRP collection scheme | Government/District court: court may set fines and payment schedules; BOP retains collection role and IFRP allows deviations | Court: No intrusion; district court may set proportional, conditional payment schedule; IFRP contemplates individualized plans |
| Whether fines were procedurally proper given PSR findings of present inability to pay | De la Cruz: PSR adopted as fact shows present inability to pay, so imposing fine was procedurally inconsistent | Court: district court recognized present inability and explained reliance on future prison wages and post-release earnings | Court: Procedurally proper — district court adequately reconciled PSR findings with its implied finding of future ability to pay |
| Whether fines were substantively unreasonable given defendants’ lack of present assets and deportability | Appellants: they lack present and likely future ability to pay (deportability, ineligibility for work) so fines unreasonable | Government: burden on defendants to prove inability to pay; court plausibly relied on future prison wages and post-release earning potential and allowed adjustments for inability | Court: Fines were substantively reasonable; presumption of reasonableness applies and appellants did not meet burden to rebut it |
| Whether de la Cruz’s 60‑month above-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | De la Cruz: upward variance excessive relative to Guidelines range | Government/District court: variance justified by offense seriousness (drugs, firearm, illegal reentry); court gave fact‑specific reasons tied to §3553(a) | Court: Affirmed as substantively reasonable given detailed, factor‑specific explanation; remand only to correct clerical error in written judgment regarding monthly rate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (BOP administers sentences; Attorney General/BOP responsible for executing sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (two‑step reasonableness review and standards for variance explanations)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error review principles)
- United States v. Voda, 994 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1993) (PSR may state inability to pay yet court can impose fine if it explains future ability to pay)
- United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008) (courts may rely on prospective prison wages when assessing ability to pay)