IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10613
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
ROY STEVENS
Defendant - Appellant
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:99-CR-75-1
- - - - - - - - - -
November 8, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roy Stevens appeals his sentence from a guilty plea for a
false statement on a loan application and aiding and abetting in
that offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 1014, 2. Stevens argues that the
district court erred when it calculated his sentence based on
relevant conduct. He also argues that the district court abused
its discretion when, as an alternative sentencing basis, it
imposed an upward departure. Stevens did not object to either
the relevant-conduct decision or the upward departure.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-10613
-2-
Consequently, these issues are reviewed for plain error. See
United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.
1994)(en banc).
The district court did not commit error, plain or otherwise,
when it calculated Jackson’s sentence based on relevant conduct.
Stevens and his codefendant, Arthur Jackson, carried out various
activities that were part of the same course of conduct or
ongoing scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2); United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515,
526 (1999). The actions were all fraudulent banking practices,
perpetrated with the aid of the same accomplice (codefendant
Jackson), with the same victim (the First State Bank of Vega,
Texas), and dedicated to the same purpose. Whether by giving
false information on a loan application, writing bad checks, or
creating false wire transfers, Stevens attempted to keep Jackson
in business by circumventing banking laws. He obtained credit
for Jackson’s cattle business that Jackson otherwise would not
have been entitled to and created the false impression that he
had sufficient funds to cover his liabilities. As the district
court did not err when it calculated a sentence based on relevant
conduct, the argument regarding the alternative sentencing basis
is moot. Stevens’ sentence is AFFIRMED.