United States v. Randal Bookout, 693 F. App'x 332

Defendant Randal Joseph Bookout pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 210 months imprisonment and a $100,000 fine.
On appeal, Bookout first challenged the district court’s refusal to apply a two-level minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), relying on Amendment 794 commentary changes.
The Presentence Report (PSR) described a larger distribution scheme; Bookout argued he only obtained methamphetamine for personal use and friends, made no profit, and lacked decision-making authority.
Bookout also challenged the district court’s determination that he had the ability to pay the imposed fine based on his status as a beneficiary of a trust fund.
He did not object in district court to either the role adjustment or the fine determination, so the Fifth Circuit reviewed both claims for plain error.
The court found the record did not support a minor-role finding and that Bookout failed to carry his burden to prove inability to pay; it affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Bookout's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether a two-level minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) was required	Bookout: He was a minor participant who only obtained drugs for personal use/friends, made no profit, and lacked decision-making authority	District court: PSR shows participation in a larger distribution scheme; factual determination for sentencing court	No plain error; record does not support minor-role adjustment and factual disputes cannot be plain error when not raised below
Whether the district court erred in finding Bookout had ability to pay the $100,000 fine (based on trust beneficiary status)	Bookout: Court improperly considered trust proceeds/parents’ affluence and failed to make required findings	District court: PSR contained trust-beneficiary information; defendant failed to prove inability to pay or object	No plain error; defendant bore burden to show inability to pay, presented no evidence, fine within guideline range and presumptively reasonable

United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to object results in plain error review)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standards for plain-error review)
United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2005) (role-adjustment is factual)
United States v. Guerrero, 5 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 1993) (factual sentencing issues not preserved cannot be plain error)
United States v. Fierro, 38 F.3d 761 (5th Cir. 1994) (similar preservation principle for sentencing facts)
United States v. Magnuson, 307 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2002) (defendant bears burden to prove inability to pay fine)
United States v. Painter, 375 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2004) (consideration of family affluence in sentencing)
United States v. Pacheco-Alvarado, 782 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2015) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines fines)
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (same)