PER CURIAM:
Lance Hensley appeals his 80-month sentence for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He contends that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence for possession of 600 or more images under § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) of the sentencing guidelines.
The sentencing guidelines provide for a five-point increase in a defendant's base offense level for possessing over 600 images of child pornography. The district court found that Hensley had been in possession of over 13,000 images based on the videos and images of child pornography found on his home computer. Hensley did not object to the § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) enhancement before the district court and, therefore we review it only for plain error. See United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). "The four prongs of plain error review are: (1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect the appellant's substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 1014 (11th Cir. 2001) (interneal quotation marks and alteration omitted). We will not correct any error unless all four requirements are met. Id.
Hensley contends that the district court plainly erred because there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he had possessed over 600 images of child pornography. That contention fails. Findings