United States v. Reed ( 2023 )

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