Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott FOOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-06
Citations: 277 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 06-3940
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott FOOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 277
Pages: 597–597

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott FOOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-3940.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued Feb. 14, 2008.
Decided May 6, 2008.
Gayle Helart, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard H. Parsons, Andrew J. McGowan, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, and ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
Scott Foor pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Foor to 110 months in custody, three years of supervised release, a $500 fine and a $100 special assessment. Foor's only claim in this appeal is that the district court judge erred in failing to establish a specific schedule for making fine payments during Foor's term of imprisonment. Due to the limited nature of his appeal, we need not recite the details of his crime and plea agreement other than to note that by the terms of his plea agreement Foor may challenge this portion of his sentence.
Foor did not specifically object to the district court's fine order at sentencing, so we review the district court's actions for plain error only. U.S. v. Kelly, 519 F.3d 355, 362, n. 1 (7th Cir.2008). That is, in order to reverse the order of the district court, there must have been (1) an error, (2) it must have been plain and (3) it must have affected Foor's substantial rights. U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770,123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
The issue raised in this case can be resolved completely by reference to our recently released opinion in U.S. v. Ellis, 522 F.3d 737 (7th Cir.2008). Ellis instructs that where a court has ordered a fine payment due immediately, it is not error for the district court to fail to set a schedule for making fine payments while a defendant is incarcerated. Id. at 739-40. Nor must a court set a schedule of payments for any unpaid amount remaining during the period of supervised release. Id.
The district court's order in this matter is AFFIRMED.