Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Stephen Gills appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his schedule of restitution payments. When a defendant is ordered to pay restitution, and a “ ‘material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances [ ] might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution,’ ” the sentencing “court is authorized to adjust the payment schedule as the interests of justice require.” United States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552, 554 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k)). Here, the district court found that Gills had alleged no material changes. We have reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court’s order declining to modify its restitution schedule. See United States v. Gills, No. 2:14-cr-00160-HCM-DEM (E.D.Va. Sept. 8, 2015).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gills’ motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED,