U.S.S.G. § 8C3.3
Reduction of Fine Based on Inability to Pay
(a) The court shall reduce the fine below that otherwise required by §8C1.1 (Determining the Fine – Criminal Purpose Organizations), or §8C2.7 (Guideline Fine Range – Organizations) and §8C2.9 (Disgorgement), to the extent that imposition of such fine would impair the ability of the organization to make restitution to victims.
(b) The court may impose a fine below that otherwise required by §8C2.7 (Guideline Fine Range – Organizations) and §8C2.9 (Disgorgement) if the court finds that the organization is not able and, even with the use of a reasonable installment schedule, is not likely to become able to pay the minimum fine required by §8C2.7 (Guideline Fine Range – Organizations) and §8C2.9 (Disgorgement).
Provided, that the reduction under this subsection shall not be more than necessary to avoid substantially jeopardizing the continued viability of the organization.
Commentary
Application Note:
1. For purposes of this section, an organization is not able to pay the minimum fine if, even with an installment schedule under §8C3.2 (Payment of the Fine – Organizations), the payment of that fine would substantially jeopardize the continued existence of the organization. Background: Subsection (a) carries out the requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 3572(b) that the court impose a fine or other monetary penalty only to the extent that such fine or penalty will not impair the ability of the organization to make restitution for the offense; however, this section does not authorize a criminal purpose organization to remain in business in order to pay restitution.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1991 (amendment 422). Amended effective November 1, 2023 (amendment 824).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2005–2011 · leading case: United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). “” The court’s unwillingness to impose a lower fine, Bio-Med posits, was therefore an abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Patient Transfer Serv., Inc., 465 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2006). “The government argues that the amount of the fine was reasonable.”
United States v. Four Pillars Enter. Co., 253 F. App'x 502 (6th Cir. 2007). “U.S.S.G. § 8C3.3. Additionally, “an organization is not able to pay the minimum fine if, even with an installment schedule .”
United States v. Patient Transfer Serv., Inc., 413 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2005). “§ 3572 (a); see also U.S.S.G. § 8C3.3 (amount of fine may be reduced if an organization is unable to pay the guideline fine).”
United States v. Martin J. Bradley, Jr. (11th Cir. 2011). “U.S.S.G. § 8C3.3(a); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3572 (b).”
United States v. Roland Pugh Constr., Inc., 438 F. App'x 867 (11th Cir. 2011). “To the extent PUGH argues that the district court should have considered U.S.S.G. § 8C3.3(b), the district court properly declined to revisit its findings and calculations under the guidelines.”
— U.S.S.G. §8C3.3(a) — 2 cases
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). “” The court’s unwillingness to impose a lower fine, Bio-Med posits, was therefore an abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Martin J. Bradley, Jr. (11th Cir. 2011). “U.S.S.G. § 8C3.3(a); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3572 (b).”
— U.S.S.G. §8C3.3(b) — 3 cases
United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011). “” The court’s unwillingness to impose a lower fine, Bio-Med posits, was therefore an abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Martin J. Bradley, Jr. (11th Cir. 2011). “U.S.S.G. § 8C3.3(a); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3572 (b).”
United States v. Roland Pugh Constr., Inc., 438 F. App'x 867 (11th Cir. 2011). “To the extent PUGH argues that the district court should have considered U.S.S.G. § 8C3.3(b), the district court properly declined to revisit its findings and calculations under the guidelines.”
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.