Steven O’Neal appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. He argues that the district court plainly erred in denying him a minor-role adjustment to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The district court’s determination that a defendant did not play a minor or minimal role in the offense is a finding of fact. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005). “Questions of fact capable of resolution upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error.” United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir.1991). Whether O’Neal was a minor participant in the conspiracy could have been resolved upon proper objection at sentencing. Thus, O’Neal cannot demonstrate plain error as to that factual question. We further note O’Neal cannot possibly demonstrate any effect upon his substantial rights from failure to grant a reduction because his status as a career offender determined his offense level. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508; U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. O’Neal’s sentence is AFFIRMED.