*Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 95-50332

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DELMAR RAY TRUELOVE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(EP-95-CR-47-DB

_______________________________________________________________

January 25, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Delmar Ray Truelove pleaded guilty to criminal contempt, 18

U.S.C. § 401, and was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months.

Truelove argues for the first time on appeal that the district

court erred as a matter of law by allowing him to waive his right

to the preparation of a presentence report. He also argues for the

first time on appeal that the district court erred by failing to

sentence him according to the Sentencing Guidelines.
 

1Truelove concedes on appeal that plain error analysis is the

correct standard of review.

Because Truelove failed to raise these errors of law in the

district court, we review them for plain error.1 Fed.R.Crim.P.

52(b). Under Rule 52(b), this court may correct forfeited errors

only when the defendant shows the following: (1) there is an

error, (2) it is clear or obvious, and (3) it affects the

defendant's substantial rights. United States v. Calverley, 37

F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v.

Olano, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1776 (1993)), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1266

(1995). "[I]n most cases, the affecting of substantial rights

requires that the error be prejudicial; it must affect the outcome

of the proceeding." Id. at 164 (citing Olano, 113 S.Ct. at 1778).

The defendant bears the burden of persuasion on this element. Id.

"Normally, although perhaps not in every case, the defendant must

make a specific showing of prejudice to satisfy the `affecting

substantial rights' prong of Rule 52(b)." Olano, 113 S.Ct. at

1778. Even if the defendant makes the requisite showing of plain

error, the court is not required to correct that error. 37 F.3d at

164 (citing Olano).

We do not address the first two elements of the plain error

standard because Truelove has failed to make the requisite showing

of prejudice. Truelove in fact makes no argument in his brief that

he was prejudiced by the district court's alleged errors, i.e.,

that his sentence would have been different but for the alleged

errors. 37 F.3d at 165. 
 

2We are cognizant of the Ninth Circuit's decision in United

States v. Turner, 905 F.2d 300 (9th Cir. 1990), finding reversible

error on similar facts. The court, however, did not engage

explicitly in plain error review in reaching its conclusion. Id.

We assume that the defendant in that case, unlike here, met his

burden of showing plain error.

Concluding that Truelove failed to show plain error, we AFFIRM

the sentence of the district court.2

A F F I R M E D.