United States v. Holguin ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51108
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HECTOR HOLGUIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-98-CR-107-18
--------------------
March 22, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hector Holguin appeals his conviction and sentence following
a jury trial in which he was found guilty of several counts of
drug and money laundering offenses.
Holguin first argues that the district court erred in
grouping his offenses. The district court did not commit plain
error on this issue, as the offenses all threatened the same
societal interest. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. Holguin’s second
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-51108
-2-
argument is that the district court erred in increasing his
offense level for his role in the offense. The district court
did not so err, as trial testimony showed that at least five
persons were involved in the offense and that Holguin managed and
supervised at least one of them. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.
Holguin’s third and final argument is that the district
court erred in failing to dismiss one count of the indictment as
multiplicitous, as it involved the same substantive offense for
which Holguin was punished in a prior count. The district court
did not err in not dismissing the allegedly multiplicitous count.
The counts of which Holguin complains involve the conspiracy to
commit money laundering and the substantive offense of money
laundering. “[A] substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit
that crime are not the same for double jeopardy purposes.”
United States v. Brown, 29 F.3d 953, 957. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.