When a party does not assert a specific objection in the district court, as is the case with respect to the imposition of the fine here, we review for plain error. See United States v. Santiago, 466 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.2006). “A district court's finding of whether a defendant is able to pay [a] fine is reviewed for clear error....” United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2009). III. Analysis

When a party does not assert a specific objection in the district court, as is the case with respect to the imposition of the fine here, we review for plain error. See United States v. Santiago, 466 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.2006). “A district court's finding of whether a defendant is able to pay [a] fine is reviewed for clear error....” United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2009). III. Analysis

We review the district court's decision to impose the fine and the amount of the fine for reasonableness. United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2009). The district court's finding that Hurtado is able to pay the fine is reviewed for clear error.

But, that representation does not automatically satisfy their burden of proving they are unable to pay the fine, now or in the future. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Ladum, 141 F.3d 1328, 1344 (9th Cir. 1998). Both Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) recommended the $25,000 fines, based in large part on the lack of financial information disclosed by the defendants.

Obendorf suggests this condition prevents him from farming, but we think it plain that the condition proscribes only intentional feeding or baiting, whether direct or indirect. Finally, the $40,000 fine is not unreasonable. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2009). The amount of the fine corresponds to the pre-sentence report's estimate of the market value of the ducks taken.

The district court did not clearly err in finding Campos able to pay the special assessment. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, at the time of sentencing, imposition of an assessment of $5,000, payable in $150 installments starting 60 days after judgment, was reasonable in light of the language of the statute and Campos's circumstances.

Given the evidence of Anyanwu's assets and her failure to provide requested financial documentation to the Probation Office, the district court did not clearly err by holding that Anyanwu failed to meet her burden of proving that she was unable to pay the fine. See U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(a); United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the $75,000 fine was not unreasonable.

The district court did not clearly err because the record contains sufficient evidence that Schulze owns a 1995 Chevrolet pick-up truck that may be sold to satisfy the fine. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Ladum, 141 F.3d 1328, 1344 (9th Cir. 1998). The district court properly denied Schulze's motion for reconsideration for the same reason.

"The district court must consult the Guidelines' recommendation, the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) factors to determine the appropriateness of the imposition of a fine and its amount." United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 2009).

See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009).