something more than a mere finding of guilt; otherwise, the second definition would be superfluous. The petitioner says that the “something more” is a sentence. In his view, he received no sentence for the shoplifting crime, and, therefore, that charge did not result in a “formal judgment of guilt” under the first definition. The facts of this case do not demand that we test the petitioner’s hypothesis because his argument fails on its own terms. We explain briefly. At the time that the state court found the petitioner guilty of shoplifting, it ordered him to pay a $250 fine. The finding of guilt coupled with the imposition of a pecuniary sanction constituted a formal judgment of guilt by any measure. See Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. DHS, 629 F.3d 1223, 1226-27 (11th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 530-31 (5th
holding that a guilty plea for which the defendant received a deferred adjudication counted as a conviction under federal law for purposes of ussg  4b11 holding that a district court may accept a defendants guilty plea despite an absence of admission to criminal wrongdoing holding that petitioners prior guilty plea and deferred adjudication for forgery did not amount to a conviction within the meaning of the immigration reform and control act 8 usc  1255a holding that a conviction vacated under ohio revised code  2943031 for the trial courts failure to advise the alien defendant of the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea is no longer a valid conviction for immigration purposes holding that to establish a conviction for immigration purposes a court must accept a guilty plea or jury verdict make an adjudication and impose a sentence