UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 96-4732

PAULINE E. MCCASKILL,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, District Judge.
(CR-96-16)

Submitted: May 1, 1997

Decided: May 13, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gordon Widenhouse, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States
Attorney, Geoffrey S. Mearns, Assistant United States Attorney,
Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pauline E. McCaskill appeals the sentence stemming from her con-
viction for knowingly stealing and converting to her own personal use
property of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (1994).
On appeal, McCaskill asserts that during sentencing, the district court
erroneously increased her base offense level on the rationale her
crime involved more than minimal planning. The Government con-
tends that McCaskill failed to raise this issue before the district court
and has forfeited appellate review. We affirm.

McCaskill opened a personal checking account in May 1995.
Between June 2, 1995, and June 26, 1995, McCaskill issued eight
checks, in the amount of $200 each, to the Morale, Welfare and Rec-
reation facilities at the United States Marine Corps base at Camp
Lejeune. McCaskill admits that when she wrote these checks, she
knew that she had insufficient funds in the account to cover the
checks.

Because McCaskill wrote eight worthless checks to the same payee
in a three-week period, the probation officer who prepared
McCaskill's presentence report ("PSR") suggested a two-level
increase to her base offense level because the offense involved more
than minimal planning.1 McCaskill argued for a downward departure
and leniency during sentencing, but she did not object to the factual
representations contained in her PSR; neither did she object to the cal-
culation of her sentence under the guidelines.2 The district court then
_________________________________________________________________
1 United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 2B1.1(b)(4)(A) (Nov.
1995).
2 With a total offense level of six and a criminal history category of V,
McCaskill's sentence under the guidelines ranged from nine to fifteen
months imprisonment. USSG Ch. 5, Pt. A.

                     2
adopted the recommendations outlined in the PSR and sentenced
McCaskill to be imprisoned for twelve months and one day, to be fol-
lowed by thirty-six months supervised release. The district court also
ordered McCaskill to pay restitution.

A defendant's failure to object to a sentencing issue amounts to a
waiver of his right to raise that issue on appeal, absent plain error. See
United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426, 440 (4th Cir. 1993). Plain error
exists when (1) an error was committed, (2) the error was plain, (3)
the error affected the defendant's substantial rights, and (4) the error
"seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings." United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. at 725, 732-36
(1993) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985)); see
United States v. Ford, 88 F.3d 1350, 1355-56 (4th Cir. 1996).

We find that the district court did not commit plain error in giving
McCaskill a two-level increase for more than minimal planning. Such
an increase is appropriate when a defendant's offense involves "re-
peated acts over a period of time, unless it is clear that each instance
was purely opportune." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(f)). Here,
within a three-week period, McCaskill knowingly issued eight worth-
less checks to an agency of the United States government. Further,
there was no evidence to support a theory that any of these instances
were purely opportunistic. Therefore, finding no error, we conclude
that McCaskill has waived appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm
McCaskill's conviction and sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3
