UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 conviction 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 contends 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 Recreation 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 calculation 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 followed 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 "repeated 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 worthless 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3