UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10479 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NORMAN Q. SEID,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (4:01-CR-190-1) _________________________________________________________________ December 30, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Norman Q. Seid appeals his sentence following his guilty plea

conviction to subscribing to a false income tax return. Seid

claims the district court erred in departing upward from the

sentencing guideline fine range because: 1) the departure was based

on conduct unrelated to the offense of conviction; and 2) this

“uncharged conduct” was previously accounted for when calculating

the applicable sentencing guideline range.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Because Seid’s arguments are raised for the first time on

appeal, we review only for plain error. E.g., United States v.

Alford,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied

(1998). Under FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b), forfeited errors may be

corrected only when there is a clear or obvious error that affects

defendant’s substantial rights. E.g., United States v. Calverley,

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied

(1995) (citing United States v. Olano,

, 731-

37 (1993)). Even then, in our discretion, such errors are

corrected only if they “seriously affect the fairness, integrity,

or public reputation of judicial proceedings”.

(internal citations omitted).

Even assuming arguendo there was error, it was not clear or

obvious. In short, Seid fails to satisfy the very strict standard

of review applicable to the issue he failed to preserve in district

court.

AFFIRMED

2