MEMORANDUM**

After the district court refused to appoint appellant Keith Burks a new attorney, he was convicted on the charge of felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court ordered that Burks would not pay for his placement in a community corrections center unless the probation officer determined that Burks had the ability to pay. Burks appeals that condition of his supervised release and the denial of his motion for substitute counsel. We affirm.

The district court was within its discretion to deny Burks’s motion because there was no evidence of a breakdown in communication between him and his attorney.1 *288The only genuine conflict between them concerned trial tactics, which are “clearly within the realm of powers committed to the discretion of defense counsel.”2 The district court ascertained that Burks’s complaint was that his attorney would not file motions challenging the district court’s jurisdiction and whether the police had probable cause to stop him, which motions the district court determined would be meritless. Although the better approach would have been to ask follow-up questions and allow the defendant to speak fully to ensure that his concerns were exhausted, the nature of Burks’s complaints gave no reason for the district court to probe further.3 Indeed, Burks and his attorney communicated during the trial,4 without any further complaints from Burks, and Burks was acquitted on the charge of possession of an unregistered firearm.

Because Burks failed to object to the district court’s decision to delegate to the probation officer the discretion to determine his ability to pay for placement in a community corrections center under 18 U.S.C. § 3672, we review that decision for plain error. After Burks filed his brief in this appeal, we held that a district court did not plainly err in delegating such decisions.5

AFFIRMED.