IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31085
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEPHEN LESTER LACY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-50029-ALL
--------------------
August 2, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stephen Lester Lacy was convicted of bank fraud, money
laundering, and bankruptcy fraud related to his doing business as
Professional Computer Analysts (PCA). Lacy appeals his
conviction and sentence.
Lacy argues that the district court abused its discretion by
rejecting his jury instruction on good faith reliance on the
advice of counsel. United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d 1070,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-31085
-2-
1076 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court found that the charge
as given contained the substance of the requested instruction.
See United States v. Chaney, 964 F.2d 437, 444 (5th Cir. 1992).
Lacy has not shown reversible error on this point.
Lacy argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss some of the counts of the indictment because
they were multiple counts applied to the same behavior. The
district court did not err in denying the motion because each
count of money laundering and bankruptcy fraud specified a
separate and distinct offense. See Blockburger v. United States,
284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); see also United States v. Cluck, 143
F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 1998).
Lacy argues that the district court erred in increasing his
offense level for specific offense characteristics by the amount
of the entire intended fraud. Lacy has not shown that the
district court erred in applying the grouping provisions of the
guidelines to his counts of conviction. United States v.
Leonard, 61 F.3d 1181, 1185 (5th Cir. 1995). Lacy has also not
shown that the district court was clearly erroneous in
determining the amount of loss that is relevant conduct to the
grouped offenses. See United States v. Rodriguez, 278 F.3d, 486,
493 (5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.