Court Opinion

ID: 9890958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 00:00:26.741083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.628244
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30708         Document: 00516932260             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                FILED
                                                                           October 16, 2023
                                       No. 22-30708                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Salih Reed,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 1:22-CR-6-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Salih Reed appeals the $500 per month restitution installment amount
   imposed as a condition of supervised release following his conviction of two
   counts of theft of firearms from a licensee. He argues that the district court
   plainly erred by imposing an unrealistically high payment amount without
   conducting the analysis required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30708        Document: 00516932260          Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                      No. 22-30708

          As Reed correctly notes, because he failed to object to the condition
   of supervised release at sentencing, this court’s review is for plain error. See
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To demonstrate plain
   error, Reed must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that
   affects his substantial rights. Id. An error is not clear or obvious if it is subject
   to reasonable debate. United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370, 377–78 (5th Cir.
   2009). If Reed makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct
   the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
   reputation of judicial proceedings. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          The presentence report, which the district court adopted without
   objection, set forth Reed’s financial situation. United States v. Ollison, 555
   F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s comments at sentencing
   indicate that the court considered Reed’s financial resources, earning
   potential, and obligations, as required by § 3664(f)(2), prior to establishing
   the restitution installment plan. See United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 328
   (5th Cir. 2005).
          Given the foregoing, Reed has not established reversible plain error in
   the imposition of the $500 per month restitution installment amount as a
   term of supervised release. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Consequently, the
   judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                            2