United States v. Perez
| Decision Date | 22 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3:96-CR-186 (JBA) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILFREDO PEREZ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING ON MOTION TO EXTINGUISH FINE
Defendant Wilfredo Perez moves for an extinguishment of the remaining $16,000 balance of the $25,000 fine he owes as part of his sentence. (Def.'s Mot. [Doc. # 605] at 1.) Defendant argues that the Court should credit the “thousands of dollars of repair and maintenance work . . . at FCI Otisville on an unpaid and volunteer basis” towards payment of his fine and consider it paid in full. (Def.'s Mot. at 4.) The Government opposes, arguing the fine should not be reduced or waived because “no showing can be made that reasonable efforts to collect the unpaid portion of the fine - $16,000 - will be ineffective,” and that there is no basis for retroactively determining that Defendant's work can be applied towards the monetary balance of the fine. (Gov't's Opp'n [Doc. # 610] at 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine on June 2, 1997. (Gov't's Opp'n. at 1.) As part of Defendant's sentence, the Court (Judge Squatrito) ordered the Defendant to pay a fine of $25,000; part of the conditions of his supervised release was that the fine would be paid in installments of $400 per month. (Id.) Records “do not indicative conclusively why the fine was imposed, or was set at the level of $25,000.”[1] (Def.'s Mot. at 1.) At the time the fine was issued, Defendant ran an automotive repair business with his family; no financial statement was ever filed, but in 1996 and 1997, he had total incomes of $18,000 and $9,200, respectively. (Id. at 1-2.) That business has since collapsed, and Defendant received “no money from it.” (Id. at 2.) On October 20, 2008, Defendant moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C §§ 3572(d)(3) and 3661 to adjust his fine payments based on material changes in his economic situation; Judge Squatrito denied the motion without prejudice. (Gov't's Opp'n at 2.) He has not renewed this motion.
Defendant moved to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) on March 20, 2015; this Court granted his motion on December 4, 2015, and reduced his sentence to time served, but ordered that “[a]ll other aspects of the original sentence shall remain in effect.” (Id.) His sentence in a related case, 3:02CR0007, was also reduced to time served on March 4, 2021, resulting in his release. (Id.) Since being on supervised release, he has been working for his sister's conservatorship business, which Defendant describes as a “new” business at which he earns a “few hundred dollars” each month, which is barely enough “to cover his cell phone plan and miscellaneous daily expenses.” (Def.'s Mot. at 3.) As a result, he describes himself as “dependent upon the support of family and [] indigent,” and asserts that he “cannot afford to pay a fine.” (Id.) As of the date the motion was filed, Defendant owed approximately $16,000. (Id.)
During his time incarcerated at FCI Otisville, a Bureau of Prisons Progress Report reflects that Defendant “saved the Food Service department hundreds of dollars by fixing and maintain [sic] the multiple pieces of equipment that would have to be replaced if he didn't fix them.” (Id. at 4; Exhibit C, BOP Progress Report). Defendant also trained and received his certification as an Electronics Technician, which allowed him to “repair and maintain numerous equipment for the Institution such as microwave[s], televisions, and food service equipment,” in addition to “design[ing] the transmitter which inmates use to listen to the television.” (Id.) The BOP Progress report stated that “[e]very department in the institution has utilized his skills at some point to repair their respective department's equipment” and that “[t]he total cost saving for the institution could not be accurately estimated however the annual estimate could be in the thousands of dollar range depending on the projects completed.” (Id.)
Fines are fully independent criminal penalties that constitute part of a defendant's sentence, United States v. Ionia Mgmt., S.A., 537 F.Supp.2d 321, 322 (D. Conn. 2008), aff'd, 555 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009), and “[i]t is well-established that a district court may not alter an imposed sentence, except in narrow circumstances. . .” United States v. Kyles, 601 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2010). A “sentence to pay a fine can subsequently be modified or remitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3573” by petition of the government when reasonable efforts to collect the fine are not likely to be effective, “corrected under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742” for an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error, United States v. Rumsby, No. 19-MJ-1626, 2021 WL 1530077, at *1 (D. Md. Apr. 19, 2021).
Defendant seeks to have the Court “deem the remaining portion of [his] fine to have been paid” by crediting the monetary value of the repair and maintenance work he performed at FCI Otisville towards the balance. (Def.'s Mot. at 3-4.) Based on the estimate in BOP's progress report that the “annual estimate” for his work repairing electronics for the institution “could be in the thousands of dollar range,” Defendant contends that the value of 16 years spent repairing electronics and other devices would easily satisfy the remaining $16,000 balance of his fine. (Id.) Defendant maintains that he is not seeking a prospective modification, but a “retrospective accounting” that considers the “calculable value of his skilled labor to be deemed payment in full.” (Def.'s Reply [Doc. # 612] at 2.) The Government argues that a petition for remission or modification of a fine may only be brought by the Government under 18 U.S.C. § 3572(c)(1) and § 3573, and that it has no basis for making such a petition because it has “no basis to believe that reasonable efforts to collect the fine are not likely to be effective” based on the progress Defendant has made so far towards paying the fine. (Gov't's Mot. at 3-4.) Further, the Government “could not identify any case law to support the proposition that volunteer work while incarcerated could, in some form, be applied nunc pro tunc to satisfy a monetary fine imposed by the Court,” and contends that it remains “inexact” how “volunteerism and good behavior” could be “properly accounted and applied to the fine.” (Id. at 4-5.)
Regardless of the Court's views on the value of Defendant's work for FCI Otisville, the Second Circuit has held that a sentencing court “may not modify the terms and conditions of the fine except ‘[u]pon petition of the Government showing that reasonable efforts to collect a fine or assessment are not likely to be effective.'” United States v. Martinez, 281 Fed.Appx. 39, 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3573). The method of payment, and the requirement that it be monetary, is one such condition and thus cannot be modified by the Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3611 (); U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Payment Information, https://ctd.uscourts.gov/payment-information ( )
While the Court acknowledges that district courts are permitted to impose community service in lieu of a fine at the time of sentencing, the Court does not have the discretion after its imposition to modify the terms of the fine and permit its payment through community service or comparable work, because to do so would essentially constitute an alternative sentence condition. See U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(e) () (emphasis added); United States v. Robinson, 20 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1994) () (emphasis added). Thus, fines...
To continue reading
Request your trial