Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Edward ERWIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-19
Citations: 282 F. App'x 349
Docket Number: No. 07-30825
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Edward ERWIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Edward ERWIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30825
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2008.
Earl M. Campbell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District Of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carol B. Whitehurst, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District Of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Paul Edward Erwin pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $15,000 fine, with any portion of the fine that was unpaid at the time of his release from prison to be payable in installments of $250 per month.
Erwin argues for the first time on appeal that the $15,000 fine was unreasonable because he will have difficulty obtaining employment upon his release from prison and because his assets are necessities of life that should remain unencumbered for the sake of his spouse.
Erwin did not challenge the fíne in the district court, and thus we review it for plain error. See United States v. Lander-man, 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir.1999).
Because the presentence report, which was adopted by the district court, stated that Erwin had a net worth of $70,000 and because Erwin has not shown that he will be unemployable at the time of his release from prison, he has not shown that the encumbrance of his assets to pay the fine will be unduly burdensome on his spouse or that the imposition of the fíne was plainly erroneous. See United States v. Magnuson, 307 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719, 723 (5th Cir.1991).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.