Opinion ID: 741894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bank Fraud Counts 10 to 13

Text: 27 Nash also contends, and the government concedes, that Counts 10 through 13 arising from the Great Western loan are multiplicitous. See United States v. Molinaro, 11 F.3d 853, 860 (9th Cir.1993) (the unit of the offense created by § 1344 is not each act in furtherance of a scheme to defraud but each execution or attempted execution of the scheme to defraud). The question is what remedy is appropriate. Nash claims that the remedy for this error is a new trial. Even assuming that such relief might ever be warranted for multiplicity, this appeal is not a candidate for it because the government would have introduced exactly the same evidence had the indictment contained only one count of bank fraud relating to the Great Western loan. See United States v. Lilly, 983 F.2d 300, 305 (1st Cir.1992). 28 Nash claims alternatively that resentencing is required. The government responds that resentencing is unnecessary because the sentences on counts 10 through 13 are concurrent. 29 In another appeal involving similar facts we did indeed instruct the district court that a sentence can be imposed on each [multiplicitous] count but must run concurrently with every other sentence on a [multiplicitous] count. Molinaro, 11 F.3d at 864. Hence we would agree with the government if its factual premise was accurate, but it is not. The district court imposed a $50 special assessment on each of these counts. 1 Since Nash's liability to pay this total depends on the validity of each of his ... convictions, the sentences are not concurrent. Ray v. United States, 481 U.S. 736, 737, 107 S.Ct. 2093, 2094, 95 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987) (per curiam). The district court sentenced Nash to a total of ten years imprisonment on the four § 1344 counts. Because he has not yet served the totality of this sentence, we remand counts 10 through 13 to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.