IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20261
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRANDON CREIGHTON SAMPLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CR-721-3
--------------------
March 11, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Brandon Creighton Sample appeals his conviction and sentence
following a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit money laundering
and other related crimes. For the following reasons, we affirm
the judgment of the district court.
Applying de novo review, we reject Sample’s argument that
the indictment was insufficient. It is not necessary that a
conspiracy charge include the elements of the substantive
offense. See United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357, 367 (5th
Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20261
-2-
233, 236 (5th Cir. 2000) (de novo standard applied), cert.
denied, 121 S. Ct. 2600 (2001). Because we hold the indictment
sufficient, we also reject Sample’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Sample acknowledges, and we hold, that the propriety of the
district court’s application of the money laundering sentencing
guidelines to his self-described “garden variety” fraud case is
unreviewable. United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449, 463 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 397 (2001). Reviewing for plain
error only, we further hold that Sample has failed to demonstrate
that the money laundering sentencing guidelines conflict with the
stated purpose of the enactment of the Sentencing Guidelines.
See United States v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1992)
(applying plain-error review). We also hold under the plain-
error standard that the factual basis of Sample’s plea supported
the charge of possession of counterfeit securities. See FED.
R. CRIM. P. 11(f); United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th
Cir.) (en banc) (applying plain-error review), cert. denied, 122
S. Ct. 37 (2001).
Insofar as Sample argues that the amount of funds laundered
was incorrectly calculated, we find no clear error on the part of
the district court. See United States v. Rodriguez, __ F. 3d __,
(5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2002), 2002 WL 13646 * 6 (U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1
valuation reviewed for clear error). We also hold that Sample
was granted the right of allocution prior to sentencing. See
FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(C); United States v. Washington, 44 F.3d
1271, 1276 (5th Cir. 1995).
No. 01-20261
-3-
We further hold that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Sample’s motion for discovery or in denying
counsel’s oral motion to withdraw representation. See United
States v. Ellender, 947 F.2d 748, 756 (5th Cir. 1991)
(discovery); United States v. Wild, 92 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir.
1996) (motion to withdraw).
AFFIRMED.