UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 97-7771

VANNIS L. LIVERMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-95-151)

Submitted: March 17, 1998

Decided: May 29, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Vannis L. Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In 1996, Vannis Liverman pled guilty to conspiring to possess with
intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and cocaine base.1 The district
court sentenced Liverman to 405 months imprisonment followed by
a supervised release term of ten years, and a fine of $5000. On appeal,
this court affirmed Liverman's conviction and sentence. Liverman
now challenges the district court's imposition of the fine as well as
the requirement that he start paying the fine through the Inmate
Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). Finding that the district
court did not commit plain error,2 we affirm the district court's order
denying Liverman's motions for a preliminary injunction and to
vacate his fine.

Even assuming for argument that the district court improperly dele-
gated to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) its authority to establish the
installment amount and timing of Liverman's fine by requiring Liver-
man to pay his fine through the IFRP,3 Liverman is not entitled to
relief. Liverman failed to show that the alleged error affected his
"substantial rights,"4 or"seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings."5

Liverman has the burden of demonstrating prejudice, 6 and Liver-
man has not shown that he was prejudiced by the district court's order
that he pay his fine through the IFRP. This issue is relatively minor
in the determination of Liverman's conviction and sentence. Further-
more, if Liverman has difficulty meeting the amount and schedule of
_________________________________________________________________
1 See 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994).
2 See United States v. Olano, 

, 730 (1993); United States
v. Castner, 

, 1277 (4th Cir. 1995); FED. R. CRIM. P. 52.
3 See United States v. Miller, 

, 77 (4th Cir. 1996).
4 See 

.
5 Johnson v. United States, 

, 1549 (1997) (internal quo-
tation marks and citation omitted); see also 

;
United States v. Johnson, 

, 808-09 (4th Cir. 1995).
6 See 

; FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b).

                     2
payments under the IFRP, he can seek a reduction from his prison
case manager or petition the district court for modification based upon
a material change in circumstances.7 Because the district court's
alleged error does not affect Liverman's substantial rights, it cannot
constitute plain error under Rule 52(b).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying Liver-
man's motions for a temporary injunction and to vacate his fine. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
7 See 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(3) (1994).

                    3