United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 04-2423
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
             Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
                                         * District Court for the
      v.                                 * District of Nebraska.
                                         *
Jose Trinidad Hernandez-Olea,            * [UNPUBLISHED]
                                         *
             Appellant.                  *
                                    ___________

                             Submitted: May 12, 2005
                                 Filed: May 18, 2005
                                  ___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Jose Hernandez-Olea appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1
claiming error stemming from an increase in his sentence due to judicial factfinding
regarding the amount of methamphetamine attributable to Hernandez-Olea and
possession of a firearm. Hernandez-Olea did not object to judicial factfinding at trial
and his claim is therefore reviewed only for “plain error.” United States v. Olano,

(1993). To show plain error, Hernandez-Olea must “show a ‘reasonable


      1
       The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska.
probability,’ based on the appellate record as a whole, that but for the error he would
have received a more favorable sentence.” United States v. Pirani, No 03-2871, slip
op. at 11 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005) (en banc). The record before the court shows that
Hernandez-Olea has not met his burden. There is nothing to suggest that the district
court would impose a lesser sentence on remand, and “‘where the effect of the error
on the result in the district court is uncertain or indeterminate -- where we would have
to speculate -- the appellant has not met his burden of showing a reasonable
probability that the result would have been different but for the error.’” 

(quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 

, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005)). Thus,
Hernandez-Olea has failed to meet his burden under plain error review.

      We therefore affirm the district court.
                      ______________________________




                                          -2-