SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Jean DeOliveira (“Appellant”) appeals from so much of a judgment of conviction and sentence, entered on April 17, 2009 in the United' States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bryant, J.), as imposed a fine in the amount of $10,000, pursuant to a guilty plea on a charge of uttering counterfeit United States treasury obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. The district court also sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment of 10 months and a special assessment of $100. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

The fine of $10,000 represents the upper limit of the United States Sentencing Guidelines range for Appellant’s offense. Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred in imposing a fine in contradiction of the presentence report’s indication that Appellant would not be able to pay a fine within the guideline range. The government counters that Appellant failed to timely raise this objection below and that the district court’s action should therefore be reviewed only for plain error. Alternatively, the government argues that even under a lesser standard of review for clear error, the action of the district court should be affirmed.

During the sentencing hearing, Appellant’s counsel raised no objection to the imposition of a fine. Later the same day, however, counsel did file an objection. Appellant contends that the objection was timely raised, therefore rendering the appropriate standard of review as that of clear error. We need not specify a standard of review, since the district court’s imposition of a fine meets review under either standard.

A sentencing judge is not bound by the recommendations of a presentence report. United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 685 (2d Cir. 1997). Further, “[ajlthough a pre-sentence report’s view that defendant has *798 no funds to pay a fine is entitled to weight, and the fact that a defendant is represented by ... appointed counsel certainly strongly suggests an inability to pay a fine, neither is conclusive.” United States v. Fields, 113 F.3d 313, 325-26 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Here, the district court imposed a fine based on its conclusion that Appellant would be able to pay a fine in the future. The court supported its conclusion by reference to other information contained in the Presentence Report including Appellant’s previously demonstrated ability to raise substantial sums of money, as well as his future intention to seek gainful employment after removal to his home country of Brazil.

A defendant bears the burden of “estab-lishfing] that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay any fine.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2 (2009) (emphasis added). While Appellant may have arguably established his current inability to pay a fine, the district court was not in error in its conclusion that Appellant has not established his future inability to pay.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.