IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10614 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:99-CR-75-2 - - - - - - - - - - October 30, 2001

Before JOLLY, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arthur Jackson appeals his sentence from a guilty-plea

conviction for a false statement on a loan application and aiding

and abetting in that offense. See

, 1014. Jackson

argues that the district court erred when it calculated his

sentence based on relevant conduct. He also argues that the

district court abused its discretion when, as an alternative

sentencing basis, it imposed an upward departure under the 1989

version of the Sentencing Guidelines rather than using the

guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-10614 -2-

The district court did not err when it calculated Jackson’s

sentence based on relevant conduct. The record supports the

finding that Jackson was aware of and participated in the various

acts outlined in the presentencing report. See United States v.

Anderson,

(5th Cir. 1999)(findings of fact

reviewed for clear error). Moreover, these acts of relevant

conduct were part of the same course of conduct or ongoing scheme

or plan as the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2)

(Nov. 1989); Anderson,

. The actions were all

fraudulent banking practices, perpetrated with the aid of the same

accomplice (codefendant Roy Stevens), with the same victim (the

First State Bank of Vega, Texas), and dedicated to the same

purpose. Whether by giving false information on a loan

application, writing bad checks, or creating false wire transfers,

Jackson and Stevens attempted to keep Jackson in business by

circumventing banking laws. They obtained credit for Jackson’s

cattle business that he otherwise would not have been entitled to

and created the false impression that he had sufficient funds to

cover his liabilities.

The district court did not commit plain error when it used the

1989 sentencing guidelines to calculate Jackson’s sentence. This

court has discretion to correct plain errors. United States v.

Calverley,

(5th Cir. 1994). An error is plain

if it is clear and obvious, and if it affects a substantial right.

United States v. Olano,

(1993). Although the

1998 sentencing guidelines were in effect when Jackson was

sentenced, the district court did not commit plain error by using No. 01-10614 -3-

the 1989 version of the guidelines because that edition was more

beneficial to Jackson. Had the district court used the 1998

version, as Jackson now urges, his offense level would have been 24

rather than 19. Therefore, Jackson’s sentence is AFFIRMED.