Convictions are multiplicitous when the prosecution charges 'a single offense in more than one count.' United States v. De La Torre, 634 F.2d 792, 794 (5th Cir. 1981). The rule against multiplicity is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy, intending 'to prevent multiple punishments for the same act.' Id. at 729. ''The test for determining whether the same act or transaction constitutes two offenses or only one is whether conviction under each statutory provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.'' United States v. Reedy, 304 F.3d 358, 363 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Nguyen, 28 F.3d 477, 482 (5th Cir. 1994)). 'Where a multipart transaction raises the prospect of multiplicity under a single statute, the question becomes 'whether separate and distinct prohibited acts, made punishable by law, have been committed.'' Id. at 363-64 (quoting United States v. Shaid, 730 F.2d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1984)).
See United States v. Reedy, 304 F.3d 358, 367 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Gallardo, 915 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1990). In Gallardo, a defendant was convicted under § 2252 of four counts of mailing ...