UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5557

DOMA MARIE NEWKIRK,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

W. Earl Britt, District Judge.

(CR-95-34)

Submitted: December 19, 1995

Decided: April 22, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gordon Widenhouse, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States

Attorney, J. Frank Bradsher, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Pursuant to Doma Newkirk's plea of guilty to violating 18 U.S.C.

§ 513(a) (1988), the district court entered a judgment order sentencing

her to fourteen months incarceration and a period of supervised

release, and also ordering her to pay restitution of $12,657.97. On

appeal, Newkirk challenges the restitution order on the ground that

the district court failed to consider her ability to pay restitution as

required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(a) (1988). Because Newkirk failed to

object to the restitution order at sentencing, we review the order for

plain error. See United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1277 (4th Cir.

1995). To reverse for plain error, we must find (1) an error, (2) which

is plain, meaning obvious or clear under current law, (3) which affects

substantial rights--meaning that it is so prejudicial as to affect the

outcome of the proceedings in the district court, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings. Id. at 1277.

Our review of the record in this case discloses no error affecting

substantial rights. Although the district court did not render independent findings regarding Newkirk's ability to pay the restitution

ordered, it satisfied its duty by explicitly adopting a presentence

report ("PSR") which contained an adequate basis for the court's

order. Id. at 1277. The PSR in this case reflects that Newkirk has an

eleventh grade education, a high school equivalency degree, and has

even completed some college course work. Moreover, she is a certified AIDS/HIV counselor, and has employment experience in that

capacity. Finally, the PSR reflects that she has no financial liabilities.

Given the information in the PSR, the district court could properly

conclude that Newkirk was capable of paying $12,657.97 in restitution over a period of three years. Moreover, we note that Newkirk did

not even attempt to present any argument in support of her burden to

prove her inability to pay restitution. See id. at 1277 n.9. Rather, when

expressly asked by the district court whether she had any objections

to the PSR's order of restitution, Newkirk explicitly said "no."

Accordingly, the district court's judgment order is affirmed. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

 2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3