Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael R. ROUSE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-11
Citations: 500 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 11-10743
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael R. ROUSE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 500
Pages: 295–295

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael R. ROUSE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10743
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 11, 2012.
Brian W. Portugal, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael R. Rouse appeals the sentence imposed following his jury convictions for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering (Count 1), and aiding and abetting securities fraud (Counts 2 and 3), mail fraud (Counts 4-8), and money laundering (Count 9). As his sole issue on appeal, Rouse argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that the offense involved sophisticated means, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) (Nov. 2010).
The determination that the offense involved sophisticated means is a factual finding that we review for clear error. United States v. Conner, 537 F.3d 480, 492 (5th Cir.2008). "A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole." United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review reveals that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the offense involved sophisticated means. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.8 (B)); United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1340 (5th Cir.1996).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.