United States v. Jose Rivera-Velez, A/K/A \Cheo, 839 F.2d 8 (1988). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Jose Rivera-Velez, A/K/A \Cheo, 839 F.2d 8 (1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jennifer P. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (waed, 2026-01-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jennifer P. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
E.D. Wash. · 2026 · confidence medium
Brawner v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 839 F.2d 8 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 9 SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 10 The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process 11 for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a), 12 416.920(a); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mendoza v. Dudek
E.D. Wash. · 2025 · confidence medium
Brawner v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 8 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 9 III.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robertson v. O'Malley
E.D. Wash. · 2024 · confidence medium
Brawner v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services, 839 F.2d 8 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 9 III.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Patten v. Kijakazi
E.D. Wash. · 2023 · confidence medium
Brawner v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 839 F.2d 8 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 9 SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 10 The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process 11 for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a), 12 416.920(a); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. Kijakazi
E.D. Wash. · 2023 · confidence medium
Brawner v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 839 F.2d 8 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1988). 9 SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS 10 The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process 11 for determining whether a person is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a), 12 416.920(a); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC v. Priddis
D. Ariz. · 2022 · confidence medium
Wegner v. Murphy (In re Wegner), 839 F.2d 8 533, 536 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Luongo
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Absent an indication "that the government has attempted or will attempt to collect the special assessment while [the defendant] lacks the ability to pay,” United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F.2d 8, 8 (1st Cir.1988) (per curiam) — and there is no such indication in this record — appellant's challenge is prematurely posed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Luongo
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Absent an indication "that the government has attempted or will attempt to collect the special assessment while [the defendant] lacks the ability to pay," United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F.2d 8, 8 (1st Cir. 1988) (per _____________ ____________ curiam) and there is no such indication in this record appellant's challenge is prematurely posed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Curry
Wash. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Rising, 867 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1989); United States v. *682 Cooper, 870 F.2d 586 (11th Cir. 1989); Rhodes v. State, 566 So. 2d 593 (Fla. Dist.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Beasley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F.2d 8 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Pagan, 785 F.2d 378 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017 , 107 S.Ct. 667 , 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
\""
Feb 16, 1988.
839 F.2d 8
Campbell, Torruella, Selya.
31  |  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.
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. 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.

The Second Circuit in United 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 under 18 U.S.C. § 3013 upon 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 (quoting United States v. Hutch-ings, 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.

Affirmed.