United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1473 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CASH R. OTRADOVEC, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 3:21-cr-44 — James D. Peterson, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED DECEMBER 2, 2022 — DECIDED JULY 6, 2023 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, SCUDDER, and LEE, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. In 2015 Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3014 and thereby directed certain “non-indigent” sex of- fenders to pay a $5,000 special assessment within twenty years from the entry of criminal judgment or their release from imprisonment. This appeal requires us to decide what it means to be “indigent” within the meaning of the statute. Consistent with the approach of every other circuit to con- sider the issue, we hold that indigency covers two things: 2 No. 22-1473 eligibility for appointed counsel and the financial capacity to provide for oneself. Under the second meaning of indigency, district courts should consider a defendant’s financial pro- spects for repaying the special assessment in future years. We therefore vacate and remand for the district court to apply this analysis to Cash Otradovec. I A Otradovec pleaded guilty in 2021 to producing child por- nography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, an offense subject to the $5,000 special assessment under § 3014. At sentencing he contended that his financial condition at the time rendered him indigent for purposes of § 3014. He explained that he had spent the last of his money paying for a private attorney, alt- hough he qualified for appointed counsel. So he believed that the special assessment did not apply to him. But the govern- ment disagreed. Taking a broader view of Otradovec’s finan- cial situation, the government focused on his future prospects and underscored that his college degree, military service, and consistent work history would probably allow him to secure a job after his release—making him non-indigent for purposes of the statute. Without explaining how it considered Otradovec’s pre- sent and future financial condition, the district court imposed the special assessment and fashioned a payment plan requir- ing Otradovec to pay $100 a month starting after his release. The court explained that it had a “hard time finding indigency here,” although it acknowledged that Otradovec could not af- ford to pay other criminal fines. No. 22-1473 3

On appeal, Otradovec insists that the proper analysis should have been much more limited—he was indigent be- cause he was eligible for appointed counsel at the time of sen- tencing. The government, as it did in the district court, urges an interpretation of indigency that would allow district courts to consider an offender’s future earnings capacity. The gov- ernment has the better argument under the language and structure of § 3014. B We begin with a word on the proper standard of review. The government suggests that we treat Otradovec’s argu- ments as forfeited because he did not articulate below the def- inition of indigency that he now advances. But Otradovec ob- jected to the special assessment in the district court and did so on the same essential grounds—his present financial condi- tion—that he presses on appeal. Nothing prevents Otradovec from amplifying and elaborating on appeal a properly pre- served argument. See Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 791 F.3d 754, 761 (7