(caption unavailable)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 94-60030
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILMER OLIVER ROWE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
*****************************************************************
_____________________
No. 94-60031
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILMER ROWE,
Defendant-Appellant.
*****************************************************************

-- 1 of 3 --

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
-2-
_____________________
No. 94-60032
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PLAS-CHEM COATINGS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
(CR-1:92-0040(P)(R), CR-1:93-36(P)(R) & CR 1:93-36-02-PR)
_________________________________________________________________
(May 11, 1995)
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After a review of the briefs, the record, and the arguments of
counsel, we are unpersuaded that the district court erred in
sentencing the defendants, Wilmer O. Rowe and Plas-Chem Coatings,
Inc. With regard to case number S92-00040PR, the district court
was not clearly erroneous in calculating the "amount of loss"
attributed to Rowe as $656,000 under section 2F1.1 of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines. Furthermore, Rowe was given adequate

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
opportunity at the sentencing hearing to challenge this
calculation. See United States v. Chappell, 6 F.3d 1095, 1101 (5th
Cir. 1993) (reviewing district court's determination of "amount of
loss" for clear error). We additionally are not persuaded that the
government breached any agreement regarding sentencing. Rowe had
not agreed to any specific amount for use in calculating his
sentence and no specified amount was part of the plea agreement.
As to restitution, we hold that the district court properly
considered the ability of Rowe to pay and the actual losses
sustained by the victim, Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., when ordering
Rowe to pay restitution of $201,273.48. As to case number 93-CR-
36-PR, Rowe and Plas-Chem agreed as part of the plea agreement to
waive the right to appeal their sentences, except for an upward
departure from the Sentencing Guidelines. Because the district
court did not upwardly depart from a sentence specifically
authorized by the guidelines in sentencing either defendant and
because the government did not breach the plea agreement when the
court enhanced the defendants sentences under section
2Q1.2(b)(1)(A), we find that the defendants waived the right to
appeal any issue relating to sentencing under case number 93-CR-
36-PR, including sentence enhancement and restitution. For these
reasons, the judgment of the district court is
A F F I R M E D.

-- 3 of 3 --