Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 5

U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2

Fines for Individual Defendants

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)       The court shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.

(b)      The applicable fine guideline range is that specified in subsection (c) below. If, however, the guideline for the offense in Chapter Two provides a specific rule for imposing a fine, that rule takes precedence over subsection (c) of this section.

(c)       (1)       The minimum of the fine guideline range is the amount shown in column A of the table below.

(2)       Except as specified in paragraph (4) below, the maximum of the fine guideline range is the amount shown in column B of the table below.

(3)                                                                              Fine Table
Offense
Level		A
Minimum		B
Maximum
   
3 and below$200$9,500
4–5$500$9,500
6–7$1,000$9,500
8–9$2,000$20,000
10–11$4,000$40,000
12–13$5,500$55,000
14–15 $7,500$75,000
16–17$10,000$95,000
18–19$10,000$100,000
20–22$15,000$150,000
23–25$20,000$200,000
26–28$25,000$250,000
29–31$30,000$300,000
32–34$35,000$350,000
35–37 $40,000$400,000
38 and above$50,000$500,000.

(4)       Subsection (c)(2), limiting the maximum fine, does not apply if the defendant is convicted under a statute authorizing (A) a maximum fine greater than $500,000, or (B) a fine for each day of violation. In such cases, the court may impose a fine up to the maximum authorized by the statute.

(d)     In determining the amount of the fine, the court shall consider:

(1)       the need for the combined sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense (including the harm or loss to the victim and the gain to the defendant), to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment and to afford adequate deterrence;

(2)       any evidence presented as to the defendant's ability to pay the fine (including the ability to pay over a period of time) in light of his earning capacity and financial resources;

(3)       the burden that the fine places on the defendant and his dependents relative to alternative punishments;

(4)       any restitution or reparation that the defendant has made or is obligated to make;

(5)       any collateral consequences of conviction, including civil obligations arising from the defendant's conduct;

(6)       whether the defendant previously has been fined for a similar offense;

(7)       the expected costs to the government of any term of probation, or term of imprisonment and term of supervised release imposed; and

(8)       any other pertinent equitable considerations.

The amount of the fine should always be sufficient to ensure that the fine, taken together with other sanctions imposed, is punitive.

(e)       If the defendant establishes that (1) he is not able and, even with the use of a reasonable installment schedule, is not likely to become able to pay all or part of the fine required by the preceding provisions, or (2) imposition of a fine would unduly burden the defendant's dependents, the court may impose a lesser fine or waive the fine. In these circumstances, the court shall consider alternative sanctions in lieu of all or a portion of the fine, and must still impose a total combined sanction that is punitive. Although any additional sanction not proscribed by the guidelines is permissible, community service is the generally preferable alternative in such instances.

(f)       If the defendant establishes that payment of the fine in a lump sum would have an unduly severe impact on him or his dependents, the court should establish an installment schedule for payment of the fine. The length of the installment schedule generally should not exceed twelve months, and shall not exceed the maximum term of probation authorized for the offense. The defendant should be required to pay a substantial installment at the time of sentencing. If the court authorizes a defendant sentenced to probation or supervised release to pay a fine on an installment schedule, the court shall require as a condition of probation or supervised release that the defendant pay the fine according to the schedule. The court also may impose a condition prohibiting the defendant from incurring new credit charges or opening additional lines of credit unless he is in compliance with the payment schedule.

(g)       If the defendant knowingly fails to pay a delinquent fine, the court shall resentence him in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3614.

(h)       Special Instruction

(1)       For offenses committed prior to November 1, 2015, use the applicable fine guideline range that was set forth in the version of §5E1.2(c) that was in effect on November 1, 2014, rather than the applicable fine guideline range set forth in subsection (c) above.

 

Commentary

Application Notes:

1.      A fine may be the sole sanction if the guidelines do not require a term of imprisonment. If, however, the fine is not paid in full at the time of sentencing, it is recommended that the court sentence the defendant to a term of probation, with payment of the fine as a condition of probation. If a fine is imposed in addition to a term of imprisonment, it is recommended that the court impose a term of supervised release following imprisonment as a means of enforcing payment of the fine.

2.      In general, the maximum fine permitted by law as to each count of conviction is $250,000 for a felony or for any misdemeanor resulting in death; $100,000 for a Class A misdemeanor; and $5,000 for any other offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(3)–(7). However, higher or lower limits may apply when specified by statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(1), (e). As an alternative maximum, the court may fine the defendant up to the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(2), (d).

3.      The determination of the fine guideline range may be dispensed with entirely upon a court determination of present and future inability to pay any fine. The inability of a defendant to post bail bond (having otherwise been determined eligible for release) and the fact that a defendant is represented by (or was determined eligible for) assigned counsel are significant indicators of present inability to pay any fine. In conjunction with other factors, they may also indicate that the defendant is not likely to become able to pay any fine.

4.      Subsection (c)(4) applies to statutes that contain special provisions permitting larger fines; the guidelines do not limit maximum fines in such cases. These statutes include, among others: 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b) and 960(b), which authorize fines up to $8 million in offenses involving the manufacture, distribution, or importation of certain controlled substances; 21 U.S.C. § 848(a), which authorizes fines up to $4 million in offenses involving the manufacture or distribution of controlled substances by a continuing criminal enterprise; 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a), which authorizes a fine equal to the greater of $500,000 or two times the value of the monetary instruments or funds involved in offenses involving money laundering of financial instruments; 18 U.S.C. § 1957(b)(2), which authorizes a fine equal to two times the amount of any criminally derived property involved in a money laundering transaction; 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c), which authorizes a fine of up to $50,000 per day for violations of the Water Pollution Control Act; 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d), which authorizes a fine of up to $50,000 per day for violations of the Resource Conservation Act; and 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(D), which authorizes, for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act under 52 U.S.C. § 30122, a fine up to the greater of $50,000 or 1,000 percent of the amount of the violation, and which requires, in the case of such a violation, a minimum fine of not less than 300 percent of the amount of the violation.

There may be cases in which the defendant has entered into a conciliation agreement with the Federal Election Commission under section 309 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 in order to correct or prevent a violation of such Act by the defendant. The existence of a conciliation agreement between the defendant and Federal Election Commission, and the extent of compliance with that conciliation agreement, may be appropriate factors in determining at what point within the applicable fine guideline range to sentence the defendant, unless the defendant began negotiations toward a conciliation agreement after becoming aware of a criminal investigation.

5.      The existence of income or assets that the defendant failed to disclose may justify a larger fine than that which otherwise would be warranted under this section. The court may base its conclusion as to this factor on information revealing significant unexplained expenditures by the defendant or unexplained possession of assets that do not comport with the defendant's reported income. If the court concludes that the defendant willfully misrepresented all or part of his income or assets, it may increase the offense level and resulting sentence in accordance with Chapter Three, Part C (Obstruction and Related Adjustments).

6.      In considering subsection (d)(7), the court may be guided by reports published by the Bureau of Prisons and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts concerning average costs.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective January 15, 1988 (amendment 54); November 1, 1989 (amendments 280, 281, and 302); November 1, 1990 (amendment 356); November 1, 1991 (amendment 384); November 1, 1997 (amendment 572); November 1, 2002 (amendment 646); January 25, 2003 (amendment 648); November 1, 2003 (amendment 656); November 1, 2011 (amendment 758); November 1, 2015 (amendments 791 and 796); November 1, 2024 (amendment 831); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 665 cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: United States v. Garrison, 133 F.3d 831 (11th Cir. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Garrison, 133 F.3d 831 (11th Cir. 1998). · cites it 12× “Where, however, two times either the amount of gain to the defendant or the amount of loss caused by the offense exceeds the maximum of the fine guideline, an upward departure from the fine guideline may be warranted.”
United States v. Michael Ray Altamirano, 11 F.3d 52 (5th Cir. 1993). · cites it 18× “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2© (emphasis added). The explicit prohibition against fining indigent defendants in U.”
United States v. Robert Joseph Carr, Jr., in No. 93-1376. United States of Am. v. Walter Orlando Cardona-Usquiano, in No. 93-1383, 25 F.3d 1194 (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 7× “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). After receiving the PSR recommending a fine of $10,000, Carr filed a sentencing memorandum requesting that the fine be waived entirely pursuant to U.”
United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “, double the gross loss amount pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2). The PSI stated: “Based on his financial condition it appears that the defendant [Swann] could pay a fine within the guideline range or make a lump-sum payment toward restitution shortly after sentencing through use of…”
United States v. Marie Antoinette Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “6 At all relevant times, U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) has stated, “[t]he court shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.”
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a); see United States v.”
United States v. Ernesto Quintieri, Carlo Donato, 306 F.3d 1217 (2d Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, Donato’s fine is determined based on his offense level.”
United States v. Marion Eugene Fair, 979 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 9× “1991) ("Since the requirement of subsection 3553(c)(1) is triggered only by the length of the sentence and not by the amount of the fine, the district court was under no special obligation to justify the magnitude of this fine.”
United States v. Mark Henry Vincent, 20 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 6× “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) (emphasis added). In ascertaining the amount of the fine, the court is to consider, among other things, “any evidence presented as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fine (including the ability to pay over a period of time) in light of his earning…”
United States v. Basurto, 117 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (D.N.M. 2015). · cites it 24× “At the third and lowest level — nonbinding on the district court 7 — are two Guidelines provisions: the general fines guideline, U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, and the *1290 guideline for the substantive offense, to which it bows.”
United States v. Sharp, 749 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 8× “Two of the Application Notes to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2 provide useful guidance in making our determination.”
United States v. Richard O. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384 (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 4× “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2; United States v. Demes, 941 F.”
Show all 665 citing cases →
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(C)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Loutos, 284 F. Supp. 2d 994 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(C)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Krader, 58 F. App'x 882 (3rd Cir. 2003).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(a) — 284 cases
United States v. Michael Ray Altamirano, 11 F.3d 52 (5th Cir. 1993). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2© (emphasis added). The explicit prohibition against fining indigent defendants in U.”
United States v. Robert Joseph Carr, Jr., in No. 93-1376. United States of Am. v. Walter Orlando Cardona-Usquiano, in No. 93-1383, 25 F.3d 1194 (3rd Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). After receiving the PSR recommending a fine of $10,000, Carr filed a sentencing memorandum requesting that the fine be waived entirely pursuant to U.”
United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Terry W. Holloway, 991 F.2d 370 (7th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Alex Wong, Roger Kwok, Chen I. Chung, Tung Tran, Danny Ngo, Brian Chan, Joseph Wang, Chiang T. Cheng, & Steven Ng, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir. 1994).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(a)(4) — 2 cases
United States v. $134,750 U.S. Currency, 535 F. App'x 232 (4th Cir. 2013).
United States v. 129 Reservoir Ridge Drive, Cullowhee, NC (W.D.N.C. 2020).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(a)(d)(l) — 1 case
United States v. William Hartley, Jr., 476 F. App'x 345 (8th Cir. 2012).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(b) — 9 cases
United States v. Fortier, 180 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Robert F. Hagmann, 950 F.2d 175 (5th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Richard Graham, III, 946 F.2d 19 (4th Cir. 1991).
United States v. Cheryl A. White, 980 F.2d 1400 (11th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Kanchan Bala Sharma, Also Known as Kay Bala, Also Known as Kay Daken, Also Known as Kanchan B. Daken, 85 F.3d 363 (8th Cir. 1996).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c) — 26 cases
United States v. Peter Simonelli, 237 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2001).
United States v. Varrone, 554 F.3d 327 (2d Cir. 2009).
United States v. Ferranti, 928 F. Supp. 206 (E.D.N.Y 1996).
United States v. Pamela Sue Hollis, United States of Am. v. William T. \Tom\" Hollis", 971 F.2d 1441 (10th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Nidal Ahmed Waked Hatum, 969 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2020).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(1) — 4 cases
United States v. Yeje-Cabrera, 430 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005).
United States v. Jose Pacheco-Alvarado, 782 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Aaron Larmar Rogers, 228 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000).
United States v. Aaron Larmar Rogers, 228 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(1)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Dean, 80 F.3d 1535 (11th Cir. 1996).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(1)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Pamela Sue Hollis, United States of Am. v. William T. \Tom\" Hollis", 971 F.2d 1441 (10th Cir. 1992).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(2) — 7 cases
United States v. Nidal Ahmed Waked Hatum, 969 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Joel Lopez-Cavasos, United States of Am. v. Joel Lopez-Cavasos, 915 F.2d 474 (9th Cir. 1990).
United States v. 817 N.E. 29th Drive, 175 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Basurto, 117 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (D.N.M. 2015). “At the third and lowest level — nonbinding on the district court 7 — are two Guidelines provisions: the general fines guideline, U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, and the *1290 guideline for the substantive offense, to which it bows.”
United States v. One Parcel of Real Est., 214 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2000).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(2)(C) — 1 case
United States v. Asper, 753 F. Supp. 1260 (M.D. Penn. 1990).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(3) — 140 cases
United States v. Ernesto Quintieri, Carlo Donato, 306 F.3d 1217 (2d Cir. 2002). “Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, Donato’s fine is determined based on his offense level.”
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a); see United States v.”
United States v. Jose Pacheco-Alvarado, 782 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39 (1994).
United States v. Richard O. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384 (3rd Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2; United States v. Demes, 941 F.”
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(3)(A) — 1 case
United States v. West, 383 F. Supp. 2d 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(4) — 40 cases
United States v. Heldeman, 402 F.3d 220 (1st Cir. 2005).
United States v. Robert B. Sperrazza, 804 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2015).
United States v. One Parcel of Prop. Located at 32 Medley Lane, 372 F. Supp. 2d 248 (D. Conn. 2005).
United States v. Nidal Ahmed Waked Hatum, 969 F.3d 1156 (11th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Alan Godofsky, 943 F.3d 1011 (6th Cir. 2019).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(S) — 1 case
United States v. Gamez, 1 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y 1998).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(l) — 4 cases
United States v. Pamela Sue Hollis, United States of Am. v. William T. \Tom\" Hollis", 971 F.2d 1441 (10th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Joel Lopez-Cavasos, United States of Am. v. Joel Lopez-Cavasos, 915 F.2d 474 (9th Cir. 1990).
United States v. Skodnek, 933 F. Supp. 1108 (D. Mass. 1996).
United States v. Lyons, 870 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D. Mass. 2012).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(c)(l)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Floyd, 738 F. Supp. 1256 (D. Minnesota 1990).
United States v. John Wiley Francies, 945 F.2d 851 (5th Cir. 1991).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d) — 138 cases
United States v. McElwee, 646 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Marvin Artley & Jerry McCoy, 489 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Garrison, 133 F.3d 831 (11th Cir. 1998). “Where, however, two times either the amount of gain to the defendant or the amount of loss caused by the offense exceeds the maximum of the fine guideline, an upward departure from the fine guideline may be warranted.”
United States v. Jack Leroy Petty, 132 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2008). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a); see United States v.”
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d)(1) — 18 cases
United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Paul Petersen, 22 F.4th 805 (8th Cir. 2022).
United States v. Shawn Lee, 950 F.3d 439 (7th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Hanafi Monem, 104 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 1997).
United States v. William L. Bauer, 129 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 1997).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d)(2) — 48 cases
United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2009).
United States v. VandeBrake, 679 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Hector Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Mark Henry Vincent, 20 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) (emphasis added). In ascertaining the amount of the fine, the court is to consider, among other things, “any evidence presented as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fine (including the ability to pay over a period of time) in light of his earning…”
United States v. Andrew M. Harvey, III, 2 F.3d 1318 (3rd Cir. 1993).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d)(3) — 13 cases
United States v. Sharp, 749 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2014). “Two of the Application Notes to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2 provide useful guidance in making our determination.”
United States v. Mark Henry Vincent, 20 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) (emphasis added). In ascertaining the amount of the fine, the court is to consider, among other things, “any evidence presented as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fine (including the ability to pay over a period of time) in light of his earning…”
United States v. Julius Paul Sager, 227 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2000).
United States v. Charles Hopper, 941 F.2d 419 (6th Cir. 1991).
United States v. Ronald L. Voda, Sr., 994 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1993).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d)(4) — 5 cases
United States v. Marie Antoinette Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2002). “6 At all relevant times, U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) has stated, “[t]he court shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.”
United States v. Syed Sami Ahmad, 2 F.3d 245 (7th Cir. 1993).
United States v. James Russell Crook, 9 F.3d 1422 (9th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Milton Minter (11th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Wendy Watkins, 329 F. App'x 354 (3rd Cir. 2009).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d)(5) — 3 cases
United States v. H. Ty Warner, 792 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Basurto, 117 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (D.N.M. 2015). “At the third and lowest level — nonbinding on the district court 7 — are two Guidelines provisions: the general fines guideline, U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, and the *1290 guideline for the substantive offense, to which it bows.”
United States v. Nichols, 376 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2004).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d)(7) — 18 cases
United States v. Park, 758 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2014).
United States v. Hassebrock, 663 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Wise Ukomadu, 236 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2001).
Adrian Caliste v. Harry Cantrell, 937 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Lawrence Lombardo A/K/A Larry Lombardo, 35 F.3d 526 (11th Cir. 1994).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d)(8) — 3 cases
United States v. Trevor Livingston Thompson, A/K/A Robert G. Foster, A/K/A Tevor Johnson, 227 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000).
United States v. Davis, 395 F. App'x 755 (2d Cir. 2010).
United States v. David Gierlus, 570 F. App'x 620 (8th Cir. 2014).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(d)(l) — 17 cases
United States v. Robert Joseph Carr, Jr., in No. 93-1376. United States of Am. v. Walter Orlando Cardona-Usquiano, in No. 93-1383, 25 F.3d 1194 (3rd Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). After receiving the PSR recommending a fine of $10,000, Carr filed a sentencing memorandum requesting that the fine be waived entirely pursuant to U.”
United States v. Garrison, 133 F.3d 831 (11th Cir. 1998). “Where, however, two times either the amount of gain to the defendant or the amount of loss caused by the offense exceeds the maximum of the fine guideline, an upward departure from the fine guideline may be warranted.”
United States v. Herron, 539 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Richard Graham, III, 946 F.2d 19 (4th Cir. 1991).
United States v. Glenda R. Washington-Williams, 945 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1991).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(e) — 38 cases
United States v. Marie Antoinette Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2002). “6 At all relevant times, U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) has stated, “[t]he court shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.”
United States v. Richard O. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384 (3rd Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2; United States v. Demes, 941 F.”
United States v. Basurto, 117 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (D.N.M. 2015). “At the third and lowest level — nonbinding on the district court 7 — are two Guidelines provisions: the general fines guideline, U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, and the *1290 guideline for the substantive offense, to which it bows.”
United States v. Andrew M. Harvey, III, 2 F.3d 1318 (3rd Cir. 1993).
United States v. Julius Paul Sager, 227 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2000).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(e)(3) — 5 cases
United States v. Long, 122 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Greene, 239 F. App'x 431 (10th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Jordan, 130 F. Supp. 2d 665 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
United States v. Natoya Mashea Handy, 592 F. App'x 893 (11th Cir. 2015).
United States v. Shultz, 880 F. Supp. 605 (N.D. Ind. 1995).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(e)(4) — 5 cases
United States v. Robert B. Sperrazza, 804 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2015).
United States v. David Hampton Tedder, 403 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Parenteau, 805 F. Supp. 2d 438 (S.D. Ohio 2011).
United States v. Shifflett, 939 F. Supp. 1244 (W.D. Va. 1996).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(e)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Peppe, 80 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 1996).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(e)(l)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Dean, 80 F.3d 1535 (11th Cir. 1996).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(f) — 44 cases
United States v. Robert Joseph Carr, Jr., in No. 93-1376. United States of Am. v. Walter Orlando Cardona-Usquiano, in No. 93-1383, 25 F.3d 1194 (3rd Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a). After receiving the PSR recommending a fine of $10,000, Carr filed a sentencing memorandum requesting that the fine be waived entirely pursuant to U.”
United States v. Michael Ray Altamirano, 11 F.3d 52 (5th Cir. 1993). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2© (emphasis added). The explicit prohibition against fining indigent defendants in U.”
United States v. Charles Edward Gresham, Jr., 964 F.2d 1426 (4th Cir. 1992).
United States v. Alex Wong, Roger Kwok, Chen I. Chung, Tung Tran, Danny Ngo, Brian Chan, Joseph Wang, Chiang T. Cheng, & Steven Ng, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir. 1994).
Knight v. United States, 37 F.3d 769 (1st Cir. 1994).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(g) — 9 cases
United States v. Luis Sanchez-Estrada & Federico Vargas, 62 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Peppe, 80 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 1996).
United States v. Mark Henry Vincent, 20 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1994). “” U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a) (emphasis added). In ascertaining the amount of the fine, the court is to consider, among other things, “any evidence presented as to the defendant’s ability to pay the fine (including the ability to pay over a period of time) in light of his earning…”
United States v. Syed Sami Ahmad, 2 F.3d 245 (7th Cir. 1993).
United States v. Irwin Berman & Joseph E. Gussen, 21 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 1994).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(h) — 4 cases
United States v. Zukerman, 897 F.3d 423 (2d Cir. 2018).
United States v. Elizabeth Mastropierro, United States of Am. v. Rachel Frankel, 931 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
United States v. Zukerman (2d Cir. 2018).
United States v. Ahmed (2d Cir. 2020).
— U.S.S.G. §5E1.2(i) — 46 cases
Leonard G. Tillman v. Lebanon Cnty. Corr. Facility Robert L. Raiger, Warden, 221 F.3d 410 (3rd Cir. 2000).
United States v. Robert F. Carrozza, United States of Am. v. Raymond J. Patriarca, United States of Am. v. Raymond J. Patriarca, 4 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 1993).
United States v. Connell, 6 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 1993).
United States v. Marion Eugene Fair, 979 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1992). “1991) ("Since the requirement of subsection 3553(c)(1) is triggered only by the length of the sentence and not by the amount of the fine, the district court was under no special obligation to justify the magnitude of this fine.”
United States v. Philip Scott May, 52 F.3d 885 (10th Cir. 1995).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.