IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20276
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR C. AMADI,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. CR-H-95-8-6)
- - - - - - - - - -
December 24, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Victor Amadi appeals his sentence following his plea of guilty
to conspiracy to defraud the Government and for aiding and abetting
in making false claims to a government agency, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2, 286, and 287. Amadi contends that: (1) there was
insufficient evidence to establish that his offenses involved more
than minimal planning or that he played an managerial role in the
offenses; (2) the district court erred by enhancing his offense
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
level both for more than minimal planning and for his aggravated
role in the offense; and 3) the district court erred in determining
the amount of the loss for which Amadi was responsible. Our review
of the record and of the arguments and authorities convinces us
that no reversible error was committed.
Amadi has not met his burden of demonstrating that the
district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous that
Amadi’s offenses involved more than minimal planning under U.S.S.G.
§ 2F1.1(b)(2) and that Amadi played an aggravated role under §
3B1.1. See United States v. Barreto, 871 F.2d 511, 512 (5th Cir.
1989). Additionally, because neither § 3B1.1 nor § 2F1.1 forbid
“double-counting” with each other, increases under both of those
sections are permitted. See United States v. Godfrey, 25 F.3d 263,
264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 429 (1994). Finally,
Amadi’s conduct in the sixteen substantive counts to which he
pleaded guilty falls within § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). Amadi fails to show
that the district court’s calculation of the loss attributable to
his conduct was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Tedder, 81
F.3d 549, 550 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
2