
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Baldomero VEGA, also known as El Viejo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-40776
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 16, 2013.
    Lauretta Drake Bahry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Fabian Guerrero, Law Office of Fabian Guerrero, Weslaco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Baldomero Vega pled guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana, and he was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range to a 135-month term of imprisonment and to a 6-year period of supervised release. In this appeal, Vega contends the district court erred in failing to reduce his offense level by two levels for acceptance of responsibility.

Because error was not adequately preserved, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Claiborne, 676 F.3d 434, 438 (5th Cir.2012). “Whether a defendant has sufficiently demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility is a question of fact.” United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 647 (5th Cir.2003). “[Questions of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error.” Claiborne, 676 F.3d at 438. Even if the argument is not reviewed for plain error, Vega cannot show that the district court’s refusal to award the adjustment was without foundation because Vega contested the drug quantity attributable to him as relevant conduct. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 1(A); United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246-47 (5th Cir.2005); United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1230 (5th Cir.1994). The judgment is AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     