USA V. FRANK LAMBERT, No. 15-30251 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 20 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-30251 D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00170-TOR v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK GLENN LAMBERT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Frank Glenn Lambert appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the $2,000 fine imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2243(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Lambert contends that the district court procedurally erred by not providing an adequate explanation for the fine imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hernandez-Arias, 757 F.3d 874, 884 (9th Cir. 2014), and find none. The record reveals that the district court considered the fine range established by the Guidelines and Lambert’s ability to pay and no further explanation was required. See id. Lambert next contends that the $2,000 fine is substantively unreasonable in light of his inability to pay it. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the below-Guidelines fine, which is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Even accepting that Lambert was indigent at the time of sentencing, he presented no evidence that he would be unable to participate in the earnings program while incarcerated or otherwise pay the fine in the future. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 15-30251
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
