Laimeche

MEMORANDUM *

Sofiane Laimeche appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss mul-tiplicitous counts.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

*836 Although Counts 1 and 2 both charge Laimeche with violating 42 U.S.C. § 408 (a)(7)(B), the counts are not multi-plicitous because each count requires proof of a different set of facts. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); United States v. Garlick, 240 F.3d 789, 793-94 (9th Cir.2001). Counts 1 and 2 are factually distinct in date and document. See, e.g., United States v. Kennedy, 726 F.2d 546, 548 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that separate sentences may be imposed for each false document submitted to a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 ); United States v. Moore, 653 F.2d 384, 391 (9th Cir.l981)(stating that calls on different days to the same person are separate acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201 (e)).

Counts 3 and 5 are not multiplicitous because, although they both charge Lai-meche with violating 18 U.S.C § 1001, each count requires proof of a different set of facts. The false statements alleged in each count were contained in different…