* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60830 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WILLIE LEE STARKS, also known as “Cat Daddy”, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:98-CR-92-1-S-B

-------------------- April 27, 2001 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Willie Lee Starks appeals from his conviction by guilty plea of conspiring to extort payoffs under color of official right and attempting to commit extortion under color of official right. He suggests that his sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), but he did not adequately argue any Apprendi issue for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We address in turn the arguments that Starks does brief for appeal.No. 99-60830 -2- Starks contends that the district court erred by attributing 22.5 kilograms of crack cocaine to him. He argues that the district court should have applied a heightened evidentiarystandard in his case because the cross-reference to the drugtrafficking guideline dramatically increased his punishment. He further argues that the evidence was insufficient under a heightened evidentiary standard to support the attribution of the crack cocaine. The record does not demonstrate that Starks raised his contention regarding the evidentiary standard in the district court. Nor did he challenge the attribution of 22.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. Our review of Starks’s contentions regarding the evidentiary standard and the attribution of cocaine therefore is under the plain-error standard. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). “Questions of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error.” United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995)(internal punctuation marks and citations omitted). The amount of drugs attributed to Starks is a factual issue that could have been resolved upon proper objection at sentencing. See United States v. Maseratti , 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993). Because the attribution of crack cocaine to Starks cannot constitute plain error, the evidentiary standard that should have been applied by the district court is a nonissue. We do not address Starks’s evidentiary-standard contention.No. 99-60830 -3- Starks contends that the district court erred by adjusting his offense level for his role as a leader/organizer. The leader/organizer finding in Starks’s case was not clearly

erroneous. United States v. Watson , 988 F.2d 544, 550 (5th Cir. 1993). Starks contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a downward departure from the guideline sentencing range. We lack jurisdiction to consider Starks’s contention. United States v. Palmer , 122 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.