No. 98-11336
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-11336
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM MORRIS RISBY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CR-94-1-H
--------------------
February 29, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Morris Risby appeals from his convictions and
sentence for conspiracy to embezzle, pay and receive kickbacks,
and money laundering; aiding and abetting embezzlement; aiding
and abetting receiving kickbacks; and aiding and abetting money
laundering. He argues that the district court erred by refusing
to conduct a Kastigar hearing, that he received multiple
punishments for the same offense, that the district court abused
its discretion by limiting Risby’s cross-examinations of witness
George Garrett and codefendant James Hargrave, and that the
district court erred by increasing Risby’s offense level pursuant
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 98-11336
-2-
to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. The record shows that
the immunity granted to Risby did not extend to the contents of
any records he produced. Further, because the offenses in Counts
20-38 required proof of additional facts that the offenses in
Counts 39-57 did not require, see Blockburger v. United States,
284 U.S. 299 (1932), and because the substantive offenses for
which Risby was convicted did not necessarily require the
participation and cooperation of two persons, see United States
v. Payan, 992 F.2d 1387, 1389-90 (5th Cir. 1993), Risby’s
contention that he received multiple punishments for the same
offense is also without merit. The district court did not abuse
its discretion by limiting Risby’s cross-examination of two
witnesses. See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). Finally, given the
information contained in the PSR, the district court did not err
by increasing Risby’s base offense level by two for obstruction
of justice. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.