Bennett

MEMORANDUM *

Ronald Lee Bennett appeals his conviction and sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion 1 when it denied Bennett’s motion for a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor’s references to the codefendant’s guilty plea were proper. 2 The guilty plea of a codefendant “may properly be considered by the jury in evaluating witness credibility.” 3 That is precisely what the prosecution suggested the jury do when it referred to Bell’s guilty plea during closing *470 argument. We affirm the district court as to this issue.

Bennett’s argument that the district court erred when it failed to dismiss counts two through twelve of the indictment also fails. In United States v. Bonallo, 4 , we decided that a scheme to defraud a bank under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 does not require “that the misrepresentation actually precede the bank’s transfer of money or property to the perpetrator.” 5 The indictment was adequate pursuant to Bonallo, and we affirm on this issue as well.

The district court also properly held that sufficient evidence supported Bennett’s conviction as to counts…