Dustin Lee Henry appeals the restitution payment schedule imposed following his conviction for theft. In addition to five years of probation, the district court sentenced Henry to restitution in the amount of $5,000, to be paid in monthly installments of $150 until paid in full. Henry contends that the district court failed to properly consider his limited financial resources when setting his restitution payment schedule, resulting in a monthly payment amount that far exceeded his means.

Because Henry did not object to the restitution schedule in the district court, his argument is reviewed under the plain error standard. See United States v. Arledge, 553 F.3d 881, 900 (5th Cir. 2008). The following factors are to be considered in setting a restitution payment schedule: (1) the defendant’s financial resources and assets, including whether any assets are jointly controlled; (2) the defendant’s projected earnings and any other income; and (3) the defendant’s financial obligations, including obligations to dependents. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2); Arledge, 553 F.3d at 900. This court will not reverse a district court’s decision concerning the scheduling of restitution payments unless the defendant shows “that it is probable that the district court failed to consider one of the mandatory factors and the failure to consider that factor influenced the court.” United States v. Schinnell, 80 F.3d 1064, 1070 (5th Cir. 1996). Henry’s challenge is unavailing, as the district court’s questions and comments at sentencing demonstrate that it was familiar with Henry’s financial circumstances and considered the § 3663(f)(2) factors in deciding his restitution payment schedule.

AFFIRMED.