United States v. Fantroy ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10227
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD HOWARD FANTROY,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:95-CR-248-D-1
- - - - - - - - - -
October 24, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard Howard Fantroy appeals the sentence imposed by the
district court following entry of his guilty plea to count 12 of
a superseding indictment charging him with mail fraud and aiding
and abetting. Fantroy argues that the district court erred in
holding him responsible for the total amount lost by the victims
of his mail-fraud scheme because the amounts used to calculate
the total base offense level were not shown to be part of the
same “scheme” of “course of conduct.” Because this issue was not
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
No. 96-10227
- 2 -
raised in the district court, we review for plain error. United
States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en
banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).
Fantroy’s argument borders on frivolity. In furtherance of
the scheme to which he pleaded guilty, Fantroy staged automobile
accidents, recruited other persons, and processed false insurance
claims. Clearly, the individual crimes involved “common victims,
common accomplices, common purpose, [and] similar modus
operandi.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 comment. (n.9(A)); see United States
v. Lghodaro, 967 F.2d 1028, 1030 (5th Cir. 1992); United States
v. Richardson, 925 F.2d 112, 115-16 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501
U.S. 1237 (1991).
Fantroy also argues that certain of the individual
transactions should not have been counted as relevant conduct
because they were outside of the statute of limitations.
Statutes of limitations do not limit consideration of what is and
is not relevant conduct. See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d
114, 118 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.