USA v. Michael Rouse, No. 11-10743 (5th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-10743 Document: 00512080172 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-10743 Summary Calendar December 11, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MICHAEL R. ROUSE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:09-CR-113-1 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 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). * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-10743 Document: 00512080172 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 No. 11-10743 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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.