
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1146                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                              ANTONIO CORDOVA GONZALEZ,                             a/k/a POTI, a/k/a EL VIEJO,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                     Coffin and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judges.                                          _____________________                                          ____________________            Carlos Vazquez Alvara,  with whom Benicio Sanchez Rivera,  Federal            _____________________             ______________________        Public Defender, and  Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr.,  Assistant Federal Public                              _____________________        Defender, were on brief for appellant.            Nelson Perez  Sosa, Assistant  United States  Attorney, with  whom            __________________        Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Jose A. Quiles Espinosa, Senior        _____________                          _______________________        Litigation  Counsel and  Edwin  O. Vazquez  Berrios, Assistant  United                                 __________________________        States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                  November 19, 1996                                 ____________________                      Per  Curiam.   In  his  appeal  from his  sentence,                      ___________            appellant contends  that the  court committed plain  error in            imposing a  $15,000 fine.   There  was no  plain error.   The            presentence  investigation report, while it did not recommend            a fine because  of defendant's presumed inability  to pay it,            also  indicated that  defendant had  assets of  approximately            $21,500 and, in addition,  any moneys that he may  receive if            his  ex-wife's bankruptcy case  were resolved.   We have held            that, under the relevant  Guidelines, "a fine is the  rule               and it is the defendant's burden to demonstrate that his case            is an exception."  United States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 620                               _____________    ______            (1st   Cir.  1993);   see  also   United   States  Sentencing                                  _________            Commission, Guidelines  Manual,   5E1.2(a) (Nov.  1995).  The                        __________________            amount  the court  imposed was  the minimum  fine within  the            applicable guideline range.  In the present circumstances, we            cannot  say  the  district   court's  imposition  of  a  fine            constituted plain  error,  as we  would need  to conclude  in            order  to  overturn   the  district  court's   action,  given            appellant's failure to object.   See United States  v. Dietz,                                             ___ _____________     _____            950 F.2d 50, 55  (1st Cir. 1991) ("We have  repeatedly ruled,            in  connection with  sentencing  as in  other contexts,  that            arguments not seasonably addressed to the trial court may not            be raised  for the first time in an appellate venue.")  If it            turns out that appellant should truly lack the  assets needed            to pay  the fine when required  to do so, he  can, of course,                                         -2-            offer his inability to pay as an excuse then.   See 18 U.S.C.                                                            ___              3569  (1985 & Supp. 1996); see also Tate v. Short, 401 U.S.                                         ________ ____    _____            395, 398 (1971).                      Affirmed.                      ________                                         -3-
