
USCA1 Opinion

	




        October 10, 1996        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1035                                     UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                               HENRY CIFUENTES-RIASCOS,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]                                                ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Benico Sanchez  Rivera, Federal Public  Defender, and Miguel  A.A.            ______________________                                ____________        Nogueras-Castro,  Assistant  Federal  Public  Defender,  on brief  for        _______________        appellant.            Guillermo Gil, United  States Attorney, Warren Vazquez and  Nelson            _____________                           ______________      ______        Perez-Sosa,  Assistant United  States  Attorneys, and  Jose A.  Quiles        __________                                             _______________        Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.        ________                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Defendant was  convicted of  unlawful                      __________            re-entry  by  a deported  alien in  violation  of 8  U.S.C.              1326(b)(2).  He was sentenced  to 100 months imprisonment and            fined $500.  On appeal he argues for the first  time that the            district court erred in imposing the fine where the defendant            was financially  unable to pay.   This  objection not  having            been made below, it  is reviewed for  plain error only.   See                                                                      ___            United  States  v. Peppe,  80 F.3d  19,  22 (1st  Cir. 1996).            ______________     _____            After careful review of  the parties' briefs and the  record,            we find no error.                      The  sentencing guidelines provide that a fine must            be imposed  within a  specified range  unless a  defendant is            unable  to  pay.    See  U.S.S.G.     5E1.2(a)(b).    When  a                                ___            sentencing court  finds a  defendant unable  to pay  the fine            established by the guidelines, "the court may impose a lesser            fine or  waive the  fine."  U.S.S.G.    5E1.2(f).   Here, the            district court expressly found that, based on the defendant's            financial  condition, "the  imposition of  a fine  within the            required range is  not viable,"  and, instead  of imposing  a            fine  within the  applicable  range of  $10,000 to  $100,000,            fined  the defendant $500.   The court was  authorized by the            guidelines to do so.  See U.S.S.G.   5E1.2(f).   There was no                                  ___            plain error.   Cf. United States v. Rivera, 68 F.3d 5, 8 (1st                           ___ _____________    ______            Cir. 1995)  (no  plain  error  in imposing  fine  well  below                                         -2-            guideline minimum where  defendant lacked apparent source  of            funds).                      Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.                      ________   ___                                         -3-
