IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30556
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEANI M. SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CR-30028
- - - - - - - - - -
January 15, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeani M. Smith pleaded guilty to a one-count Bill of
Information charging her with bank fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1344. Smith asserts that the district court erred in
enhancing her base offense level for amount of loss, more than
minimal planning, and abuse of trust. The district court did not
err in applying any of these enhancements. Payments of
restitution may not be used to reduce the amount of loss. United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-30556
- 2 -
States v. Akin, 62 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995). The guidelines
define "more than minimal planning" as "more planning than is
typical for commission of the offense in a simple form."
§ 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(f)). It "is deemed present in any case
involving repeated acts over a period of time, unless it is clear
that each instance was purely opportune." Id. The record shows
that Smith stole the checks and forged them over a two-month
period and made a false debit entry to attempt to cover $3000 of
the fraud. Finally, Smith’s position of trust "significantly
facilitated" the commission of the offense. United States v.
Fisher, 7 F.3d 69, 70-71 (5th Cir. 1993).
Smith argues that the district court erred by not granting a
downward departure for overstatement of her criminal history or
diminished mental capacity. “The imposition of a lawful sentence
coupled with the decision not to depart from the guidelines
provides no ground for relief.” United States v. DiMarco, 46
F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
The district court did not err in denying either Smith’s
motion to reconsider the sentence imposed or in denying her
motion for released pending appeal because Smith has not shown
any error in the sentence imposed. See United States v. Clark,
917 F.2d 177, 178-79 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.