United States v. Patrick

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2025 · Evidence

Evidencecriminal monetary penaltiesfinesspecial assessmentsstatutory interpretation18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1)finespecial assessment

Facts

At sentencing, the district court ordered Patrick to pay a $1,000 fine and a $100 special assessment due immediately. Because Patrick was indigent, the court also required him to make nominal payments of at least $25 per quarter through the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program while incarcerated and monthly payments of 10% of gross income, but not less than $25, during supervised release. Patrick objected that he was currently indigent and argued the court could not both make the amounts due immediately and impose a payment schedule. After judgment, the Government sent Patrick a letter demanding immediate payment of the full $1,100 and stating it would record a judgment lien unless paid in full.

Issue

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1) prohibits a district court from ordering a fine and special assessment due immediately while also setting a payment schedule for an indigent defendant to make minimum payments over time. More specifically, the question was whether those two features are mutually exclusive under the statute.

Rule

A district court does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1) by making a criminal fine and special assessment due immediately while also specifying minimum periodic payments that permit an indigent defendant to discharge the obligation over time. In this setting, immediate payment means the full obligation is presently due, while the payment schedule sets a floor for what the defendant must pay in good faith beginning immediately, rather than converting the judgment into an exclusive installment-only obligation or requiring a lump-sum payment in full.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In federal court in Phoenix, Daniel Rios is sentenced to prison and ordered to pay a $2,500 fine and a $100 special assessment. The judgment states the amounts are due immediately, and because Daniel is indigent, he must pay at least $30 per quarter through the prison financial program and at least $40 per month during supervised release.

Daniel argues the judgment is unlawful because the court had to choose either immediate payment or installments, but not both. How should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a district court does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1) by making a fine or special assessment due immediately while also specifying minimum periodic payments for an indigent defendant. Immediate due status means the full obligation is currently due; the schedule functions as a floor for good-faith payments, not as an exclusive substitute for the obligation. (Derived from United States v. Patrick (n.d.).)