affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Koeberlein, 161 F.3d 946, 949 (6th Cir.1998). Clark now contends that the district court erred in not making adequate factual findings, but he never raised this objection below. He also argues that some of the victims may already have received refunds, even though he offered no evidence as to whether he had actually made any such payments. Despite the district court’s brief consideration of the amount, if any, by which the order of restitution should be offset, the court effectively resolved any potential detriment to Clark by ruling that Clark did not have to pay those victims to whom he had already provided restitution. See United States v. Wiant, 314 F.3d 826, 832 (6th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). There was, therefore, no “plain error” on the
holding that the district courts cursory treatment of a factual matter related to victim payment was adequate under rule 32c1 because the defendant expressed very little interest in pursing his objection holding magistrates pretrial hearing sufficient under rule 44c and considering the district courts cursory questioning as well holding that the district court failed to comply with rule 32c1 because its oral finding regarding the value of loss resulting from monuss offense was stated in general terms and did not explain how it calculated the amount of loss or respond to the defendants specific factual objections to the methods of calculation included in the psr holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully