United States v. Powell
We must give “due deference to the [d]istrict [c]ourt’s reasoned and reasonable decision that
the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence.” Vowell, 516 F.3d at 512 (citing Gall, 552
U.S. at 59-60) (alterations in original). Accordingly, and in light of the discussion herein, we find
the district court’s sentence of thirty-six months of imprisonment substantively reasonable.
C. Imposition of a $10,000 Fine
Powell argues that the district court erred in imposing a fine because the Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSR”) indicated that he could not pay a fine either presently or in the future.
Although Powell argues that we must review the imposition of the fine for abuse of discretion, a
district court’s finding regarding whether a defendant is able to pay a fine is a factual finding that
we review for clear error. United States v. Thomas, 272 F. App’x 479, 489 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing
United States v. Hickey, 917 F.3d 901, 906 (6th Cir. 1990)).
Section 5E1.2 of the Guidelines states that “[t]he court shall impose a fine in all cases, except
where the defendant establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any
fine.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2(a). “In determining the ability of a defendant
to pay the fine, the district court must assess ‘(1) the defendant’s income and earning capacity, (2)
[his] financial resources, (3) the burden on the defendant and [his] dependents, (4) whether
restitution is ordered and the amount of restitution, (5) the need to deprive the defendant of illegal
gains, and (6) the need to promote respect for the law.’” Id. at 489 (citing United States v.
Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369, 387 (6th Cir. 2002)). Although “[t]he Sixth Circuit has not
resolved the question of whether the district court must make explicit findings on the record