United States v. McTizic , 111 F. App'x 255 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT September 30, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-11169 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAULETTE McTIZIC,
also known as Paulette Metizic,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:03-CR-36-ALL-Y)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paulette McTizic, who pleaded guilty to bank fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, contests her sentence. McTizic was
sentenced, inter alia, to 77 months imprisonment. A district
court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de
novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United
States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 168 (5th Cir. 2002).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
McTizic claims the district court erred by engaging in “double
counting” by relying on the “same facts” to impose both a four-
level increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), for McTizic’s role as a
“leader” or “organizer” of the offense and a two-level increase
under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(8)(c), for the “sophisticated means” used
to commit the offense. “Double counting” under the guidelines is
prohibited only if it is expressly forbidden by the guidelines
being applied. See United States v. Jones, 145 F.3d 736, 737 (5th
Cir. 1998); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.4). Neither § 3B1.1 nor
§ 2B1.1 prohibit the cumulative application of the guidelines.
To the extent McTizic contests the imposition of the four-
level organizer/leader increase under § 3B1.1(a), she has not
established that the district court erred in concluding that the
increase was warranted by her recruiting public employees to
provide information crucial to the bank-fraud scheme and by her
manufacturing fraudulent checks and identification documents.
See United States v. Stevenson, 126 F.3d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED
2