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. 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>); United States v. Moore, 653 F.2d 384, 391
holding that 18 usc  1014 has no materiality requirement because the statute does not so much as mention materiality holding that because the bank had no duty to report defendants structured transactions these transactions did not constitute material facts within the meaning of 18 usc  1001 consequently defendant may not be held criminally liable under 18 usc  2b for causing the bank to fail to disclose a material fact holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 holding that a statute which made it illegal for a person to knowingly use  any false writing or document did not involve a continuing offense because it contemplated a single act quoting 18 usc  1001 holding that separate sentences may be imposed for each false document submitted to a bank in violation of 18 usc  1014