concurring.
I write separately to emphasize the practical implications if there is a contrary conclusion to Part III.D. The dissent, along with a majority of the other Circuits,1 believes that “the court,” ie., the district judge, must determine the defendant’s restitution payment schedule at sentencing and that to allow a probation officer to set the schedule is an unconstitutional delegation of a judicial function. This is a mistake. In my opinion, such a view puts form over substance, particularly since a probation officer does not “set” a payment schedule.
District courts rely upon probation officers everyday for the necessary information regarding an appropriate sentence. For example, probation officers prepare presentence investigation reports and recommend a sentence which the probation officer views appropriate in light of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the particularities of each defendant.2 In a case where restitution is to be part of the sentence, the probation officer also recommends the amount of restitution.3 In sentencing the defendant, however, it is the district court which actually sets the sentence and the restitution amount, if any.
Here, at sentencing, the district court here made no mention of the schedule under which the defendant was to pay the amount of restitution ordered. The Judgment Including Sentence Under the Sentencing Reform Act entered by the district court states:
The Defendant shall pay restitution of $1,285,243.26 through the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program,4 and thereafter according to an installment plan developed by the Defendant and the probation officer, as more fully described in this order;....
(JA at 62, emphasis and footnote added) The Judgment further goes on to say:
Finally, the Defendant objects that when ordering restitution, the Court must consider his ability to pay and the needs of his dependents. The Probation Officer has provided the Court with a detailed report on the Defendant’s fl-*363nancial situation and his prospects for future employment. The Court has taken this information into consideration in determining the appropriate restitution order. Furthermore, the post-imprisonment plan to be developed by the Defendant and his probation officer will take into consideration his financial status and the needs of the Defendant’s dependents. Accordingly, the Defendant’s objection is MOOT.
(JA at 67, first emphasis added)
This procedure recognized the practicality of deferring the setting of the restitution payment schedule until closer in time to when the defendant would realistically be making such payments, as opposed to setting a rigid schedule at the time of sentencing. Indeed, “Courts generally do not have enough information at sentencing to know what payment schedule to fix, particularly when a defendant will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The defendant’s evolving ability to pay is best known by the probation officer during supervision.” Criminal Monetary Penalties: A Guide to the Probation Officer’s Role IV-1, Monograph 114, Federal Corrections and Supervision Division, Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Thus, rather than setting a speculative restitution payment schedule at the time of sentencing, and then later modifying the schedule,- the district court allowed for the defendant and the probation officer to set a reasonable schedule based on current circumstances in the first instance.5
The dissent underappreciates the role of the probation officer and does not take into account what a burdensome proposition it would be to require the district courts to micro-manage each defendant whose sentence has a financial component. Indeed, the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 3572 specifically states that the statute is intended to “eliminate the ... requirement that the specific terms of an installment schedule to be fixed by the court. The court is thus able to delegate the responsibility for setting specific terms to a probation officer.” H.R.Rep. No. 100-390, § 7 (1987), reprinted in 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2137, 2143.
Further, concerns that probation officers will abuse their authority are unfounded. Even where a probation officer (working with the defendant) is to establish a restitution payment schedule, should any problems or disagreements arise, the district court must resolve the dispute. Indeed, the Judgment here expressly provides that the payment schedule is to be developed by defendant, with his probation officer. Accordingly, in part the responsibility of devising a reasonable payment schedule is implicitly placed on the defendant, who can always avail himself of the district court in the event of problem. Clearly, the district court has the final authority on the restitution payment schedule and has not “delegated” its judicial role to the probation officer.
In sum, I do not consider permitting a probation officer to establish a restitution payment schedule, after the restitution amount is set by the district court, to be a “delegation” of judicial function, but rather, a realistic way of dealing with the uncertainties of the future, particularly the ability of the defendant to meet the financial component of his sentence. Catherine *364M. Goodwin, Looking at the Law, 64, no. 1 Fed. Probation 62 (2000).
. See United States v. Merric, 166 F.3d 406 (1st Cir.1999); United States v. Coates, 178 F.3d 681 (3d Cir.1999), United States v. Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711 (4th Cir.2000), United States v. Myers, 198 F.3d 160 (5th Cir.1999); United States v. Mohammad, 53 F.3d 1426 (7th Cir.1995).
. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(b) and (c); 18 U.S.C. § 3552.
.Id.; see also, Chapter 11 of The Presentence Investigation Report for Defendants Sentenced Under the Sentencing Reform Act of1984, Publication 107, Probation and Pretrial Services Division, Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
.28 C.F.R. § 545.11.
. In determining a defendant’s ability to pay, the probation officer compiles data through interviews, financial record verification, personal financial statements, and asset and liability criteria. Criminal Monetary Penalties: A Guide to the Probation Officer's Role IV-1, Monograph 114, Federal Corrections and Supervision Division, Administrative Office of the United States Courts.