IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10879
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LEWIS EDWARD MARTIN, a/k/a
Robert North, a/k/a Mike Tomaz,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-017-A
_________________________________________________________________
March 19, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lewis Edward Martin has appealed the sentences imposed
following entry of his guilty pleas to counts 1 and 3 of an
indictment charging him with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and
with mail fraud and aiding and abetting.
The district court’s findings as to the amount of the
intended loss were not clearly erroneous. United States v.
Ismoila, 100 F.3d 380, 396 (5th Cir. 1996). “The court need only
make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
information.” United States v. Chappell, 6 F.3d 1095, 1101 (5th
Cir. 1993)(internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
1183 (1994), and cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1184 (1994). Martin
introduced no evidence showing that he intended to limit the
scope of the conspiracy. See United States v. Gray, ___ F.3d
____ (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 1997), 1997 WL 33622 at *11. The alleged
impossibility of completion of the attempted offense does not,
under the facts of this case, provide a basis for reversal.
Ismoila, 100 F.3d at 396-97.
Martin argues that the district court abused its discretion
in failing to award him an adjustment in offense level for
acceptance of responsibility. Although the district court
characterized the issue as a close question, it held that Martin
had failed to carry his burden of proof and adopted the probation
officer’s recommendation. This conclusion was not clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Maldonado, 42 F.3d 906, 913 (5th
Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
2