Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

United States v. Jose Rivera-Velez, A/K/A "Cheo,"

United States v. Jose Rivera-Velez, A/K/A "Cheo,", 839 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1988)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1988-02-16
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellant José Rivera-Velez pled guilty to a charge of possession of stolen material, 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (1982), and was sentenced by the district court to a five-year term of imprisonment which the court suspended. Rivera-Velez was placed on probation and the court imposed the special monetary assessment of $50 required by law, 18 U.S.C. § 8013 (Supp. II 1984). Appellant challenges on appeal only the $50 special assessment, contending that imposition of a mandatory fine upon an indigent defendant violates the Constitution.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Jose Rivera-Velez, A/K/A "Cheo,". The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
32 opinions
UNITED STATES v. RIVERA-VELEZ,839 F.2d 8(1st Cir. 1988)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. JOSE RIVERA-VELEZ, A/K/A "CHEO,"
DEFENDANT, APPELLANT.
No. 87-1785.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard February 1, 1988.
Decided February 16, 1988.
David W. Roman with whom Gerardo Ortiz Del Rivero, San Juan, P.R., was on brief, for defendant, appellant.

Jose R. Gaztambide, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, U.S. Atty., Hato Rey, P.R., was on brief, for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and SELYA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Appellant Jose Rivera-Velez pled guilty to a charge of possession of stolen material,18 U.S.C. § 1708(1982), and was sentenced by the district court to a five-year term of imprisonment which the court suspended. Rivera-Velez was placed on probation and the court imposed the special monetary assessment of $50 required by law,18 U.S.C. § 3013(Supp. II 1984).

[2] Appellant challenges on appeal only the $50 special assessment, contending that imposition of a mandatory fine upon an indigent defendant violates the Constitution. It is not controverted that at the time of his being sentenced and, insofar as appears, at present, Rivera-Velez was and is indigent. There is no indication, however, that the government has attempted or will attempt to collect the special assessment while Rivera-Velez lacks the ability to pay.

[3] The Second Circuit inUnited States v. Pagan,785 F.2d 378, (2d Cir.),cert. denied,___ U.S. ___,107 S.Ct. 667,93 L.Ed.2d 719(1986), has upheld against constitutional attack the imposition of a similar special assessment under18 U.S.C. § 3013upon an indigent defendant. We agree with the Second Circuit. The mere existence during indigency of an outstanding penal liability does not violate a defendant's rights. Constitutional considerations will come into play "only if the government seeks to enforce collection of the assessments `at a time when [the defendant is] unable, through no fault of his own, to comply.'"Id.at 381 (quotingUnited States v. Hutchings,757 F.2d 11,14-15(2d Cir. 1985)).See also United States v. Atkinson,788 F.2d 900,903-04(2d Cir. 1986). So long as Rivera-Velez remains indigent he has ample protections against being sanctioned improperly for non-payment, and, of course, his financial circumstances could improve over time.

[4]Affirmed.Page 825