Paulette McTizic, who pleaded guilty to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. *256 § 1344, contests her sentence. McTizic was sentenced, inter alia, to 77 months imprisonment. A district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 168 (5th Cir. 2002).

McTizic claims the district court erred by engaging in “double counting” by relying on the “same facts” to impose both a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a), for McTizic’s role as a “leader” or “organizer” of the offense and a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(8)(c), for the “sophisticated means” used to commit the offense. “Double counting” under the guidelines is prohibited only if it is expressly forbidden by the guidelines being applied. See United States v. Jones, 145 F.3d 736, 737 (5th Cir. 1998); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.4). Neither § 3B1.1 nor § 2B1.1 prohibit the cumulative application of the guidelines.

To the extent McTizic contests the imposition of the four-level organizer/leader increase under § 3Bl.l(a), she has not established that the district court erred in concluding that the increase was warranted by her recruiting public employees to provide information crucial to the bank-fraud scheme and by her manufacturing fraudulent checks and identification documents. See United States v. Stevenson, 126 F.3d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.