doubt as to each count is that the financial transaction in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity and that's really where we have the gap in the  enterprise and there were no legitimate means i think that to characterize the we know there is revenue from the flea market exactly but one of the principal  both legitimate and illegitimate components to aspect seen one business doesn't it make sense to fall to say that the entire business is illegitimate no i don't know tracing requirements in other words that's right there's no tracing requirement but that doesn't mean that any income lets a drug trafficker makes is automatically unlawful procedure if if mr cologne for example went outside of the mall and ran a car wash for a day and he got two hundred dollars that two hundred dollars doesn't automatically become on lawful procedure simply because he's the one who really couldn't if he never mixed any of this you know which of them didn't come with it that would be true payments from the renters at the mom and the cash payments always come to him first before he gives them to his employee to deposit couldn't a juror find you know presumably he had all of the cash in his office at the mall so let's say you had it locked or stay for a lock box or something wouldn't the fines then be contaminated at that point so they're mixes are cash or talking into his office and so just like you can't tell when something comes out of a bank account because there's no straightening requirement consumated his pot of money his pot of cash that he's got functions in that sense like a bank account so that anything that comes out it because he's got all this cash in his office that matter we don't have to figure out what we don't know that that's how he kept his money third there's no evidence this is a this is the biggest problem with the government's case is that mr klein was really a one man operation and so we don't have the money or evidence as to a accounting as to how he maintained this money i would agree with you if there was evidence that every every single piece of money he obtained he put in a washing machine he twirled the tub and then he just pulled out money that's coming that's the same thing as putting proceeds that is revenue that's coming from a lawful source mr anderson let me tell you what concerns me about this and you can you can address it we all agree don't we tracy is not required we all agree that jackson versus virginia supplies the governing standard of review and i and we all agree that direct evidence is never required circumstantial evidence can also satisfy the beyond a reasonable doubt burden so given all of those things why couldn't a rational juror have reached the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that drug proceeds were mixed with the with the mega mall furniture business proceeds life i think there's a distinction between saying tracing is not required and cash all the same so what would the government have to prove how would the government have to prove this they could do it in a number of ways they could prove that there was a drug transaction for example that occurred before this money was deposited and  the way the government typically proves it is they prove there is a drug transaction that generated a certain amount of income that income is exceeds what could be ascribed to any other source of income and so when you make the deposit the imposing a tracing requirement effectively no because you don't have to know how much of the cash is legitimate or not you don't have to trace it back to you know what where particularly it comes from i need to show as per transaction the amount of money could not consist entirely of legitimate income and in our case take the the transaction that referred brought to the bank on july sixteenth of twelve hundred dollars nobody knows where that money came from it could have come from drug trafficking it could have come entirely from legitimate income from mall there's just no evidence of that now the government you know evidence well but we've already given the government the entrance that some of this money was was drug money there's no direct evidence that any of the forty four thousand dollars was drug money it could have been money entirely from the mega mall and she was spending you know that the expenses came out of the drug money so we've given that inference to then say each separate transaction has to involve drug proceeds piling  qualifies as a separate felony that's not what the money laundering statute says the money laundering statute requires proof specific to each count let me just spend one minute of cologne and pay the eight hundred dollars i'm not aware that he has used this case about anything other than the eight hundred dollars well sentence appears to be driven entirely by the substantive drug well three hundred sixty months in prison right the money laundering counts are eight hundred twenty month terms so that as far as i can see the only thing that turns on your argument the eight hundred dollars special assessment well i think that certainly there is a sentencing package doctrine which suppose it didn't even have to be charged you know and perhaps welcome back to my question is there anything here that we're talking about other than eighty one hundred dollars special assessments well we're  decisis and this court routinely win of a case counts of conviction even if it was not the lead counts that drove the prison sentence routinely remains but if it doesn't affect the guideline range it's not clear why it should appears to be completely dominated by the drug so right well what i again what i'd say is i suggest that not remaining this for resentencing would create an interest or get split especially with the adams case which is an involved the same counts the court vacated the money laundering counts reminded for reasons and drug counts the drug counselor what drove the sentence so i don't see any reason why the courts should depart from that practice and the government has not asked the court depart from that to answer your question judge baird this is somewhat unusual i guess we usually charge on the back end more frequently but we think the front end it's really the classic money wandering it's what allows money longer to be effective what if it's what allows  reasoning that supports that enhanced as it as it was applied here is really not much more than he was a big time drug dealer what what did he do in terms i mean as a middleman right he quantities no no doubt about that so as far as the volume of the drug trafficking i think we can agree it was substantial but what did he do to organize  so to start with yes we agree it classified as a middleman we're not really disputing that we think his role and to start with but on that when the district court was attempting to place people within this conspiracy based on the relative culpability  sense that mr klein was at a higher level while while he was an organizer a leader it's shown at least a couple times he ordered or requested however whatever term you want to use mr lester rocketed you can decide what you disagree with me ok i think what it shows is that if least on a couple of occasions the courier was at least willing to take an instruction to drop the kilos off at another location at stewart's house his drug transactions with the protection of the mall and he organized and manage them all so i don't know if you've got your theory i don't know her position necessarily or realized that i do think the district court sentencing under thirty five fifty three not the guidelines when the under this quest precedent specified sort of what i was going to answer got it there were we agree to the organizer leader is something of a close call for the court and there's a lot of moving parts a great if the court doesn't think he was deserves a three b one point one incident for the drugs that he would be below forty three and for the drugs but that does not necessarily reduce his guidelines and i just i just worry i worry about saying about this case in other cases be if you are a big time drug dealer you are an organizer a leader there one in this saying that that reason troubles me so i think there's more here if there is not there are ways to go around that the court doesn't have to address that one the court can just find mr clarke to be an organizer a leader for the money laundering or can simply go to the thirty five fifty three factors and say the court sentence wasn't based on the guidelines so even though we think the district court said no more and there is more for the drug and handsome and that's not paramount to the courts and or at least two reasons both the money laundering enhancement unequivocal language that you would need to find harmlessness of if the guidelines were different i still would impose the same signs if the district court had not said i'm posing this under thirty five fifty three that would have been in error so all sentences are thirty five fifty three  that doesn't make the guidelines harmless on the leadership again you know should go to the judge mr brooks question about organizing the mall the shoe case pretty clearly indicates that organizing property organizing a business is not organizing people and organizing people is what the three of you want one enhancement is about so we think that that was improperly imposed and we've asked the court to revers