Riley

MEMORANDUM **

Michael A. Riley appeals the restitution order imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to produce fictitious obligations, possession of fictitious obligations, and identification fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 , 514(a)(2), and 1028(a)(5) and (b)(l)(A)(ii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review issues raised for the first time on *704 appeal for plain error, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), and we affirm.

Appellant contends that the district court plainly erred when it failed to consider appellant’s ability to pay restitution, and instead relied on the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program when setting his payment schedule.

We disagree. A review of the record demonstrates that the district judge properly recognized its non-delegable duty to create the payment plan, and created appellant’s schedule. See United States v. Gunning, 339 F.3d 948, 949 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (noting that the responsibility for setting a restitution payment schedule is non-delegable). Further, the district court had access to appellant’s financial information so that it was…