United States v. Jackson

MEMORANDUM *

James Earl Jackson appeals the district court’s order requiring Jackson to pay restitution in the amount of $217,878.15. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not repeat it here except as is necessary to explain our opinion.

Jackson attacks the district court’s restitution award on two grounds, neither *958 of which is persuasive. First, Jackson argues that the district court erroneously based its restitution award on Jackson’s ability to pay over a twenty year period, rather than a five year period. Because Jackson failed to raise this issue before the district court, we review for plain error. Under plain error analysis, an error that is plain requires reversal only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” See United States v. Zink, 107 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)).

The error alleged by Jackson was not plain. The 1995 versions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3664 do not expressly require a court to…