Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): together is inconsistent. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). The guidelines require district courts to examine a defendant’s role-in-the-offense under § 3B1.1 before grouping or separating counts under § 3D1.2. See U.S.S.G. §§ IB 1.1(c) & (d) (setting forth the chronology to be followed in calculating a final offense level and requiring adjustments to be made under Part B of Chapter 3 before applying Part D of Chapter 3). Thus, when conduct from one count (or group of counts) has already been used to trigger an adjustment to another count (or group of counts), § 3D1.2(c) requires all those counts to be grouped together. We have several times prohibited the grouping of fraud and money laundering counts together into a single group. See United States v. Green, 225 F.3d 955, 958-59 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. O’Kane, 155 F.3d 969, 972-74 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a count of 18 usc  1956 reinvestment money laundering should not be grouped with wire fraud counts under  3d12b (B) holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001 (C) holding that a count of 18 usc  1957 money laundering should not be grouped with mail fraud counts under either  3d12b or d (D) holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 (E) holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud
Output (English): holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud