Gonzalez

MEMORANDUM ***

Teresa Gonzalez appeals the sentence and restitution order imposed by the fed *641 eral district court as a result of her conviction for bank fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and we affirm.

Gonzalez claims that the restitution order improperly exceeds the amount of the victim’s actual loss. We find that defense counsel’s statements during the sentencing hearing withdrew any objection to the restitution amount, so we may only review the restitution award under the plain error standard. United States v. Newman, 6 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir.1993). To warrant relief under this demanding standard, there must have been (1) error (2) that is plain and (3) affected Gonzalez’s substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Furthermore, we grant relief under this standard only where the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings” and “a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” Id. at 736 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The burden of demonstrating plain error is on…