United States v. Pacheco-Alvarado, No. 13-31083 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn a consolidated appeal, Jose Pacheco-Alvarado and Cesar de la Cruz challenged sentences of fines imposed by a district court. De la Cruz also challenged as unreasonable his above-guidelines-range sentence of imprisonment. Pacheco-Alvarado pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry. Pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, his presentence report ("PSR") assigned a total offense level of 10 and a criminal history category of III. It stated that he was subject to a mandatory special assessment of $100; a statutory maximum fine of $250,000; and a Guidelines fine range of $2,000 to $20,000. In a separate proceeding before the same judge, de la Cruz pled guilty to four counts of knowingly and intentionally distributing a controlled substance and one count of being an alien illegally and unlawfully in the United States who knowingly possesses a firearm. His PSR assigned a total offense level of 15 and a criminal history category of I, which produced a Guidelines imprisonment range of 18 to 24 months. The PSR stated that de la Cruz was subject to a mandatory special assessment of $100 for each of the five counts of conviction; statutory maximum fines of $1,000,000 for one of the counts, $500,000 for one of the counts, $250,000 each for two of the counts, and $250,000 for the remaining count; and a Guidelines fine range of $4,000 to $1,500,000. In each case the PSR concluded, based on an examination of available financial records and an independent investigation into the defendant's employment, vocational, and educational history, that the defendant had no assets and no monthly income. Both PSRs stated that "it does not appear that the defendant has the ability to pay a fine." The district court adopted the statements in each PSR as its findings of fact. Nevertheless, the district court imposed a fine on each defendant: $2,500 for Pacheco-Alvarado and $5,000 for de la Cruz, with a monthly payment schedule set at one-third of the defendant's prison earnings, conditional on the prisoner's being allowed to work while in prison. The court waived the interest requirement for each fine and pronounced identical conditions for both fines at sentencing. Finding no reversible error, the Fifth Circuit affirmed each defendant's sentence, except that in de la Cruz's case, the Court remanded in part for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the written judgment.
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.