IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30516
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KIM ANDREA WEBB,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 96-CR-50086
- - - - - - - - - -
December 18, 1997
Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Kim Andrea Webb pleaded guilty to count 5 of an indictment
charging him with wire fraud and has appealed the district
court’s restitution order. Webb contends that the restitution
order was imposed in violation of the Victim and Witness
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663. Because Webb failed to object
to the restitution order in the district court, we review this
issue under the plain error standard. See United States v.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-30516
-2-
Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-35 (1993)).
Webb concedes that the victims of his “employment testing”
scheme are entitled to restitution. He argues, however, that
certain other victims were who were enticed to extend credit to
him for airline tickets and hotel rooms were victims of an
entirely different scheme and were not entitled to restitution
under § 3663(a)(1).
Webb has not shown that the error is plain and has affected
his substantial rights. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-35.
Moreover, the issue presented involves a question of fact.
“[Q]uestions of fact capable of resolution by the district court
upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain
error.” United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir.
1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). The judgment is
AFFIRMED.