
    Eleazar GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ernesto GONZALEZ, Suk Cha Gonzalez, doing business as Hong Kong Buffet, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-50713
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 12, 2007.
    
      William H. Beardall, Austin, TX, Edward J. Tuddenham, Cambridge, MA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jody Wayne Sims, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant won below on his FLSA claim and appeals only the district court’s calculation of his damage award. The overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act require an employer to pay covered workers “at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Appellant argues that his “regular rate” should have been calculated by dividing his weekly salary by the number of hours he worked per week-a rate which exceeded minimum wage. He explains that his overtime wages should have been calculated based on this rate and the number of overtime hours work.

The district court, however, assumed that the plaintiff was hired for the minimum wage, and that any extra money provided by his fixed salary was intended to partially compensate for overtime. The district court calculated the overtime rate based on the minimum wage, and deducted from plaintiffs overtime wages the partial compensation. As a result of the district court’s approach, plaintiff argues that he is owed an additional $6,804.85 in wages and $6,804.85 in liquidated damages.

There was a trial below and testimony about the parties’ intent. Yet the plaintiff argues that “it is indisputable that the district court was itself deeming the Plaintiffs hourly wage to be the minimum wage of $5.15 as a matter of law, rather than finding that this wage somehow represented the intent of the parties.” (emphasis added).

We disagree. The district court found that “the twice monthly payments were intended to cover all hours worked, including regular hours and overtime.” (emphasis added). It further found that “the raises were intended to compensate plaintiffs for overtime hours worked.” (emphasis added). Plaintiffs efforts to transform this into a legal question are inconsistent with the record. We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, which plaintiff does not even attempt to show. The judgment of the district court 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.
     