United States v. Reed

Opinion

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.