UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40683
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DENNIS DEAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(4:96-CR-67-3)
March 3, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dennis Dean appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit bank fraud
and for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1344, respectively. He contends
that the prosecution did not produce evidence sufficient to convict him of the
offenses and that his passing of bad checks did not constitute bank fraud under
section 1344(2). He further contends that the trial court erred in admitting
extrinsic offense evidence. Finally, as to sentencing, Dean maintains that the
court erred in determining the amount of loss to be considered in the relevant
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
conduct assessment, and in its finding that the offense involved more than
minimal planning.
Our review of the record and briefs persuades that the district court did not
commit reversible error. We reject Dean’s contention that the record is devoid
of evidence that he participated in a conspiracy to commit bank fraud and that
he committed bank fraud.1 Sufficient evidence of same exists. We likewise
reject Dean’s contention that his passage of bad checks did not constitute bank
fraud. His reliance on United States v. Medeles2 is misplaced. The fraudulent
representations made and inherent in passing bad checks facilitated the fraud and
constituted a violation of section 1344(2).
Nor did the court abuse its discretion by admitting extrinsic offense
evidence, specifically, evidence of counter checks passed by Dean resulting in
his guilty plea to state charges of theft by check. The evidence was relevant to
an issue other than Dean’s character and the limitations placed on the
prosecution’s use of the evidence muted any prejudicial effect. 3
Finally, neither the district court’s finding of the amount of the loss
attributable to Dean’s conduct,4 nor the finding that his involvement exceeded
1
United States v. Johnson, 87 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 1996), cert.. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1482
(1997) (absent a timely motion for judgment of acquittal, review of the sufficiency of
the evidence is limited to determining whether a manifest miscarriage of justice exists).
2
916 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1990).
3
United States v. Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d 1368 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc).
4
United States v. Wimbish, 980 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1992).
2
minimal planning5 is clearly erroneous.
The convictions and sentences are therefore AFFIRMED.
5
United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330 (5th Cir. 1996).
3