UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. LEONID SHIFRIN, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-1345 (D.C. No. 1:10-CR -00215-PAB-1) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , MATHESON , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Leonid Shifrin appeals from a district court order denying his motion to modify a condition of supervised release. We have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see United States v. Lonjose, 663 F.3d 1292, 1299-13 00 (10th Cir. 2011), and affirm.
I Shifrin pled guilty to one count of fi ling a false income ta x return. He was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonm ent, to be followed by one year of

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 5, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 supervised release. He was also ordered to pay re stitution of $873,340. The restitution order provided that “[a]ny unpaid restitution balance upon release from incarceration shall be paid in monthly in stallment payments during the term of supervised release,” with m onthly installment payments to “be calculated as at least 10 percent of the defendant ’s gross monthly wages.” In December 2015, after Shifrin served his prison term, th e district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment to be followed by six additional months of supervis ed release. The revocation order states that if restitution is requi red, “it is a condition of s upervised release that the defendant pay in accordance with the Schedule of Payments sheet of this judgment.” The attached schedule of payments simply states: “The defe ndant shall pay the outstanding balance of the restit ution in the amount of $868,520.00.”
Shifrin filed a motion to reconsider this condition in August 2016, arguing that he will be unable to pay the full restitution award in six months. The district court denied the motion in a minute order, stating that “[f]ailure to pay the entire balance does not mean that supervised release wi ll be revoked.” Shifrin timely appealed.
II We generally review a district court order imposing a condition of supervised release for abuse of discretion. See L onjose, 663 F.3d at 1302. However, if a defendant fails to object to a condition at the time it is announced, we review only for plain error. United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686, 691 (10th Cir. 2011). “To establish plain error, the defendant must show: (1) e rror, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects3 substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedin gs.” Id. at 691-92 (quota tion omitted). In imposing restitution agai nst a defendant, a district court is required to “order restitution to each vi ctim in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the court and without consid eration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A). Ho wever, the court must also “specify in the restitution order the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid, in consideration of . . . the financial resour ces and other assets of the defendant.” § 3664(f)(2). If a defendant is ordered to pay restitution, he must “make such paymen t immediately, unless, in the in terest of justice, the court provides for payment on a date certain or in installments.” § 3572(d)(1). Based on the foregoing, the district c ourt should have included an explicit payment schedule in its order revoking supervised release, which took into consideration Shifrin’s fina ncial resources and ability to immediately pay the amount due. The government points to a separate condition of supervis ed release, which requires that Shifrin “apply any monies received from in come tax refunds, lottery winnings, inheritances, judgm ents, and any anticipated or unexpected financial gains to the outstanding court ordered financial obligation in this case.” It contends that Shifrin’s payment obligation while on supe rvised release app lies only to these financial gains. But the orde r does not suggest that Shifri n’s payment obligation is so limited; instead, this condition is sepa rate and distinct from the schedule of payments.4 Nevertheless, even assuming the distri ct court committed plain error, we decline to exercise our disc retion to correct it under the fourth prong of the plainerror test. See United States v. Turrietta, 696 F.3d 972, 984 (10th Cir. 2012). To satisfy the fourth prong, a defendant must show that an error was “particularly egregious,” akin to a “miscarria ge of justice,” such that it will “seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial pr oceedings.” Id. (quotations omitted). Although the distri ct court should have provid ed a schedule of payments properly reflecting Shifrin’s fi nancial resources, it explaine d to Shifrin, in response to the present motion, that “[f]ailure to pay the entire balance does not mean that supervised release will be re voked.” Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that Shifrin will suffer any adverse conseque nce in the absence of an explicit sc hedule. Shifrin could appeal separately s hould such consequences even tually occur. See United States v. Morgan, 44 F. App’x 881, 887 (10t h Cir. 2002) (unpublishe d).
III AFFIRMED . Shifrin’s motion to pro ceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED

.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge