Implicit Non-Indigency Findings Satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3014: A Commentary on United States v. Cansler (4th Cir. 2025)

I. Introduction

The Fourth Circuit’s unpublished per curiam decision in United States v. Eric William Cansler addresses three discrete issues:

The substantive and procedural reasonableness of a 360-month federal sentence imposed partly concurrent and partly consecutive to a 50-year Florida sentence for related sexual crimes;
An Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge to that sentence; and
The legality of a $5,000 special assessment levied under 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a) despite the district court’s failure to utter the words “non-indigent.”

Although unpublished, the opinion crystallises and extends Fourth Circuit precedent by holding—expressly relying on United States v. McMiller—that a district court’s implicit finding of non-indigency is sufficient under § 3014(a) so long as the record supports the inference and the defendant failed to object. That proposition, while suggested in earlier cases, is here applied to a set of facts far more likely to provoke an indigency debate (a 75-year-old defendant already obligated to state restitution, child-support, and federal assessments).

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit affirmed every aspect of the district court’s judgment:

360-Month Sentence – Neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable and not cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.
$5,000 § 3014 Assessment – Imposed without reversible error because the district judge implicitly found Cansler non-indigent.
Other Issues – Alleged Rogers/Singletary supervised-release errors and § 2259A(a) assessment arguments were deemed waived due to undeveloped briefing.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)
– Triggered the appellate court’s independent obligation to examine potential issues when counsel initially filed an Anders brief.
United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670 (4th Cir. 2020)
– Held an implicit non-indigency finding adequate under § 3014. The Cansler panel treats McMiller as controlling, extending its logic to a defendant with a minimal future earnings prospect.
United States v. Claybrooks, 90 F.4th 248 (4th Cir. 2024); United States v. McKinnie, 21 F.4th 283 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Devine, 40 F.4th 139 (4th Cir. 2022)
– Provide the standard for appellate review of sentencing (abuse-of-discretion, presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences).
United States v. Ross, 72 F.4th 40 (4th Cir. 2023); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991); Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983)
– Set and refine the “gross disproportionality” test for Eighth Amendment challenges. The court finds Cansler’s conduct far more serious than Solem’s passive check forging.
United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020); United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021)
– Concern district-court pronouncement of discretionary supervised-release conditions. The panel reiterates that undeveloped arguments on these points are waived.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Procedural Reasonableness – Guidelines were accurately calculated at 360 months; parties were heard; and the court explained its choice in relation to § 3553(a).
Substantive Reasonableness – 360 months is within the advisory range and therefore presumptively reasonable. Cansler’s heinous exploitation of a minor outweighed mitigation.
Eighth Amendment Challenge
– Applying the two-step proportionality test, the panel found no inference of “gross disproportionality.” A functional life sentence for producing child pornography involving repeated rape of one’s own minor child is “at least as grave” as the Harmelin drug offense approved by the Supreme Court.
§ 3014 Assessment
– Plain-error review applied (no objection below). Borrowing from McMiller, the court deemed the PSR’s unobjected-to findings—monthly veterans or disability benefits and possible future earnings—an implicit non-indigency finding. Therefore, no clear or obvious error occurred.
Waiver of Other Claims – By failing to brief alleged Rogers/Singletary errors and another § 2259A(a) assessment issue, Cansler waived them under established circuit doctrine.

C. Potential Impact of the Decision

Special Assessments – The opinion cements the idea that district courts need not utter talismanic phrases regarding indigency; a silent record plus an unchallenged PSR suffices. Defendants (and counsel) must now build a clear record of indigency or risk losing the issue on appeal.
Sentencing Appeals – The decision reinforces the difficulty of overcoming the presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences for child-exploitation crimes.
Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence – By characterising child-pornography production (especially involving hands-on rape) as at least as grave as large-scale drug trafficking, the panel signals that term-of-years life-equivalent sentences are unlikely to be struck down as cruel and unusual in sexual-exploitation contexts.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

18 U.S.C. § 3014(a) Special Assessment
A $5,000 payment tacked onto the sentence of a defendant convicted of certain sex offenses, unless the defendant is indigent. Indigency is not about current income only; courts may consider future earnings, assets, or benefits.
Implicit vs. Explicit Findings
An explicit finding is a direct statement (“Defendant is non-indigent”). An implicit finding exists when the court’s actions (adopting the PSR, ordering payment) logically presume non-indigency, and neither party objects.
Plain-Error Review
Four-part test (error, clear/obvious, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness/integrity of proceedings). Hard to satisfy; silence at sentencing forces defendants to clear a high bar on appeal.
Presumption of Reasonableness
If a sentence falls inside the properly calculated Guideline range, appellate courts presume it reasonable. The defendant must show it is “unreasonable” in light of § 3553(a) factors.
Gross Disproportionality
The Eighth Amendment only prohibits extreme term-of-years sentences that are vastly out of proportion to the offense. Only one Supreme Court case (Solem) has ever found a term-of-years sentence unconstitutional for disproportionality.

V. Conclusion

United States v. Cansler underscores three lessons for practitioners:

Objections matter. A failure to contest indigency or supervised-release conditions in the district court will likely doom those issues on appeal.
Within-Guidelines sentences—especially for child-exploitation crimes—face a steep uphill battle on substantive-reasonableness and Eighth Amendment grounds.
The Fourth Circuit has now twice approved implicit non-indigency findings for § 3014 assessments, effectively shifting the burden to defendants to create an affirmative record of indigency if they wish to avoid the mandatory $5,000 levy.

While the opinion is unpublished and therefore non-precedential under Fourth Circuit rules, it provides persuasive authority and a cautionary roadmap: litigants must preserve financial-ability disputes, and district judges may confidently rely on PSR-based inferences when imposing § 3014 assessments. The decision thus refines federal sentencing practice in sex-offense cases and narrows defendants’ room to manoeuvre on appeal.