require “[t]he determination of the defendant’s role in the offense ... to be made on the basis of all conduct within the scope of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), ie., all conduct included under § lB1.3(a)(l)-(4), and not solely on the basis of elements and acts in the count of conviction.” U.S.S.G. Ch. 3 pt. B, introductory cmt. Ross’s wire fraud leadership consisted of “acts or omissions [he] committed ... during the commission of the offense of [money laundering or] in preparation for that offense,” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l), and was therefore relevant conduct as to the money laundering counts. Thus, the district court did not err in adjusting the money laundering guidelines based on Ross’s role in the underlying fraud offense. See United States v. Howard, 235 F.3d 366, 371 (8th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). C Although we find no adjustment error under
holding that defendants state conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was not part of the instant federal money laundering offense even though the concealed weapon was found at the time of defendants arrest for attempting to carry out money laundering scheme holding that relevant conduct includes the defendants participation in all aspects of the scheme and citing with approval united states v hanley 190 f3d 1017 1034 9th cir1999 which held that a district court did not err in considering a defendants role in the entire wire fraud scheme in applying a  3b11 adjustment to money laundering activity holding that  3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies citing united states v petty 82 f3d 809 810 8th cir1996 and united states v ono 72 f3d 101 10203 9th cir1995 holding that district court did not err in finding that similar scheme involved sophisticated means holding the act inapplicable to the united states in its role as employer