MEMORANDUM **

Garudadas Wawero Marshall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the fine imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Marshall contends that the district court erred by finding that he had the ability to pay the $1,000 fine imposed. We review for clear error the district court’s determination that a defendant is able to pay a fine. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009). Even accepting that Marshall was indigent at the time of sentencing, he failed to demonstrate his inability to pay because he presented no evidence that he would be unable to participate in an earnings program while incarcerated or otherwise pay the fine in the future. Therefore, the district *784 court did not err by imposing the below-Guidelines fine. See id. (“[T]he court may fine a currently indigent defendant, if it finds that he has earning capacity to pay the fine in the future”).

AFFIRMED.