UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10479
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NORMAN Q. SEID,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:01-CR-190-1)
_________________________________________________________________
December 30, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Norman Q. Seid appeals his sentence following his guilty plea
conviction to subscribing to a false income tax return. Seid
claims the district court erred in departing upward from the
sentencing guideline fine range because: 1) the departure was based
on conduct unrelated to the offense of conviction; and 2) this
“uncharged conduct” was previously accounted for when calculating
the applicable sentencing guideline range.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Because Seid’s arguments are raised for the first time on
appeal, we review only for plain error. E.g., United States v.
Alford, 142 F.3d 825, 830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1003
(1998). Under FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b), forfeited errors may be
corrected only when there is a clear or obvious error that affects
defendant’s substantial rights. E.g., United States v. Calverley,
37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied 513
U.S. 1196 (1995) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-
37 (1993)). Even then, in our discretion, such errors are
corrected only if they “seriously affect the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. 37 F.3d at 164
(internal citations omitted).
Even assuming arguendo there was error, it was not clear or
obvious. In short, Seid fails to satisfy the very strict standard
of review applicable to the issue he failed to preserve in district
court.
AFFIRMED
2