
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. Bruce W. GORDON, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Tara Garboski, also known as Tara Green, Oral Frank Osman, also known as Frank Osman, also known as Frank Martin, Laura Weitz, also known as Laura Winters, Scott Mi-chaelson, Steve Rubin, also known as Steve Ruben, also known as Steve Walden, Martin Reffsin, and Annette Haley, Defendants-Appellants, Who’s Who Worldwide Registry, Inc., Sterling Who’S Who, Inc., Defendants.
    Docket Nos. 00-1122(L), 00-1125, 00-1235, 00-1123, 00-1126(XAP), 00-1277, 00-1124, 00-1181, 00-1164.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 30, 2002.
    Brian E. Maas, Beldock, Levine & Hoffman, New York, NY, for defendant-appellant Tara Garboski, aka Tara Green, Alan M. Nelson, Law Office of Alan M. Nelson, Lake Success, NY, for defendant-appellant Oral Frank Osman, aka Frank Osman, aka Frank Martin, John Laurence Kase, Kase & Druker, Garden City, NY, for defendant-appellant Laura Weitz, aka Laura Winters, Martin Geduldig, Law Office of Martin Geduldig, Esq., Hieksville, NY, for defendant-appellant Annette Haley, Thomas F.X. Dunn, Law Office of Thomas F.X. Dunn, Esq., New York, NY, for defendant-appellant Steve Rubin, aka Steven Ruben, aka Steve Walden, aka Steve Ruben, Scott E. Leemon, Law Office of Scott E. Leem-on, Esq., New York, NY, for defendant-appellant Martin Reffsin, Paula Schwartz Frome, Law Office of Paula Schwartz Frome, Esq. Garden City, NY, for defendant-appellant Scott Michaelson, Norman Trabulus, Storch, Amini, & Munves, New York, NY, for defendant-appellant Bruce W. Gordon.
    Ronald White, United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
    Present OAKES, NEWMAN and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the decision of said district court with regard to all issues other than the inclusion of unclaimed deductions for tax loss calculations under § 2T1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the consecutiveness of the sentences on counts 54 and 55 (and the related structuring of the sentences), and the government’s cross-appeal regarding grouping of mad fraud and tax counts under § 3D1.2(e) be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. The unclaimed deduction issue, the consecutiveness issue (and the related structuring of the sentences), and the cross-appeal issue are addressed in a separate opinion filed today.

Defendants-appellants were convicted after a thirteen-week jury trial for their roles in a scheme to market memberships in a supposedly exclusive Who’s Who organization. On appeal, defendants challenge the district court’s determinations on join-der and severance, sufficiency of the evidence, admission of certain evidence, jury instructions, and sentencing. The appellants also allege prosecutorial animus. This Court affirms the district court on each of the issues addressed in this summary order for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.  