thank you your honor i am michael patrick from chapel hill i represent the the defendant diaz in this case this of course it was a case arising out of the eastern district of north carolina my client was indicted in twenty  and subsequently tried own four charges relating two of them relating to money laundering that is conspiracy and a specific money lying you may have to pull that microphone little bit closer just don't be sure he gets everything you say yes  or my client was indicted on four counts in the eastern district and ultimately try to convicted on well he's indicted them more than four things but he was also been tried and convicted on four counts two of them involve money laundering two of them  cocaine and marijuana distribution there was a conspiracy in the south of count on each of those i'd like to turn first to the money laundering issues that we raised in our brief the can i have she a question for  a little bit out of track but i'm just trying to clarify what is your objection as it pertains to count one this is a conspiracy to just street i saw you saw to make a generalized complain about that the money laundering conspiracy part of it a objection to the failure to mention interstate commerce element of the offense i think we cited  case on her the but is that go to count one no sir it goes to the substantive i'm just asking is it any other specific count any other specific objection to count one other than the faith to cha the that is the that's the main issue there that there was there was not a real explanation to the jury i think in the instructions on the quantity of the weight that of the drugs that need to get that other question now as for sort of where the sentence would have to go that's right yes or you you a something about a government agent what does does that concern about the government agent and the conspiracies that go to the conspiracy the money that you know the old you know the settled law is that you cannot can spare spar with a government agent the facts in this case showed that at the time of the charge money laundering which occurred in november of tw the longtime associate of mr diaz cox had been arrested and agreed to participate and the dealings that the government talked about after that as to the money laundering charge had to do soley with mr cox and then also the government agent grucci i believe was the d e h on our main argument on the money laundering conspiracy charge was that as to that charge there was really no evidence that anybody else was involved with that one hundred thousand ten dollars it was a promotion scheme the money was posted mostly go to buying a trailer to transport drugs and the only people that the evidence showed knew about that purpose and the conspiracy and who were involved in that are the two government agents in addition  conspiracy he was certainly in the drug conspiracy from the evidence gone or but there was no evidence that he had any conversations having to do with that particular transaction and why i'm saying is there isn't any specific requirement that are you suggesting there's there's a conspiracy that exists between to bars to stay cox and your client phone oh there  conspiracy of transportation of drug money laundering where your client usenet loosely buys an article he buys a boat in and is taken down to to bars who didn't push drugs and he buys a trailer i think it was a fifth what about a month no but what about a promotional money laundering conspiracy where money is used to buy those items at a take into devourers for drugs to be hidden well there is not any real clear evidence about what exactly went on with the earlier  i mean there was a fifth avenue trailer and a boat that was taken down there we really don't know how those were purchased you know whether they had been mr diaz's or mr cox's for many years and used for camping and not recently the government seven it really doesn't go into that they focus really on the one nine hundred thousand dollars of that was used the by this specific trailer the government a lot indicted the case the way they indicted it and i think they have to prove  conspiracy they brought in this particular case and if you look at the facts surrounding that you think the government fails i want to be sure i understand this you think the government fails because there's no evidence that asked to that boat and as to the fifth avenue trailer there's no evidence from which to bar snoo that had been ball could easily have known that was bought with drug proceeds i think there was no evidence showing that he had discussed the acquisition of the trailer which trailer the the one they would the way we have the what yes the one that was bought with the one nine hundred thousand dollars i know but i'm asking that's not required is it i think if you looked at you know if you look at what the jury instructions are to join that conspiracy they have to have a knowledge of the purpose of the conspiracy in the conspiracy that they were talking about in those charges is the acquisition of that specific trailer a taking drug proceeds and using them to buy the boat for then two bars but drugs in and the fifth avenue trailer if he knew that an ongoing money laundering conspiracy where this was just one example of it i would tend to concede that you but that's not the way this was charged and i don't believe the evidence shows that there was this that kind of the discussion that it was this a bit differently in my brief i think that if you look at it as an as an attempt case clearly my client giving the one nine hundred thousand dollars to the government agents with a discussion about ag wiring that trailer that probably going to be under the case law sufficient for and temps i'm not going to argue that here so our primary argument is on the money laundering conspiracy that they're just not not sufficient ho somebody other than a government agent was involved in that and under the case well that's not sufficient to convict my client of conspiracy moving on to the other you know the other charges which involve drug distribution there was a substantive count as well as a conspiracy the problems that arose in this case really had to do with you know i don't know what we exactly was going on during trial look like there was a lot of problems with weather and other things and judge boyle was in a hurry to to get the case over but there was a very very like thirty second charge conference and then the there were multiple problems with the jury instructions given to government agents or agents or not there was a defendant's request for that at the end of the case where at the end of the instrument was in any reaction and then the judge gave a charge and there was no further objection which you think that makes that i don't know i mean my impression from reading it was that the judge was like winging it to a certain extent i mean especially with regard to his off the money laundering explanations when he was confusing since concealment promotion and he is in winds of charging the jury both ways on that and that's a part of what we're arguing here that even if you find that there's substantial evidence on the longer conspiracy the instructions were so messed up off the cuff to a certain extent and i mean this is an example of what happens when you do that i mean you know there wasn't in my experience the kind of elements of the crime being very carefully listed and then ex nation to the jury and you know i don't have an explanation for that but it left a lot of room for confusion in this case which partly was cleared up or you could look pull out certain parts of the jury instructions on money laundering or on the substantive offenses but it really was a mess over all now frankly there wasn't you know a lot of objections to that willfulness element you know that is an element in either the conspiracy or the drug distribution and there really was not i mean there was a definition of willfulness but not really a listing of the woman but what he did but he did telco about he says that people have to willfully agree and knowingly means done voluntarily and intentionally and not because in the stake act why doesn't why doesn't isn't that sufficient well you know i think it's our contention that isn't sufficient you know but i'm asked and i know that's intention but i'm saying why isn't that doesn't that make the point that it's not x and x that you mean to do it well that makes intentional what makes a willful is the knowledge that it's illegal i mean that you're going to do something that you know is illegal that's really the crux of willfulness you can do something that you know you're going to do but not know that it is willful or willful in the sense that you know it's illegal and that's going to a critical difference i think between those two but he says the word willfully means the act is committed voluntarily and purposely with the coordination with castillo and others when the evidence is viewed in the entirety there is sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction for money laundering conspiracy as well as money laundering used by those objects which would be in this case the boat in the fifth avenue trailer that within used to high drug your honor i believe that cox own the boat so i'm not certain whether there is evidence of the purchase of the boat but with respect to the purchase of the first trailer the fifth avenue trailer agent current sherry specifically states in this is that page two twenty one he's asked about the arrangements that he participated in as to the purchase of the first trailer and he specifically says none for the purchase of the first trailer that had already been worked out but and collaborative effort between these individuals and when was that was the first ell first we have the the pattern of the behavior here this was a situation and where the defendant and castillo and his other coconspirators were engaging in increasingly large quantities of drug dealing in the early years  was sufficient to meet the defendants demand simply to use the trailer and to put the drugs in the back of the trailer in quantities ranging i believe cox testified from about twenty pounds up to seven hundred or so and then you see as over the course of their business dealings that becomes insufficient so they use the boat because they need to accommodate those bigger dealing and then we also know that the  trailer the fifth avenue trailer was i believe we can at least say that it was purchased prior to being prior to october thirtieth which is when they begin their trip to texas with the trailer which with which the fifth avenue trailer and under these circumstances where the individuals are using increasingly large vehicles to transport those the i think it's a reasonable inference that if they could have utilized the fifth avenue trailer from the very beginning they would have in this case but they advanced to the boat and under the fifth avenue trailer and we do have testimony  castillo was involved in that and then we have the steal new drug proceeds were being used to purchase the fifth avenue through there or any inference tell me what that is there is a reasonable inference here the defendant had been engaging in this drug trafficking relationship with individuals with to bar and his associates and other individuals who i believe had potential connections to the mexican cartel there's absolutely no evidence in the record the the defendant had any legitimate employment everything indicates that this was that he was a drug dealer and that was his primary means of employment we also know that whenever the defendant was using his corey or is just send money down to texas it was understood that that was drug proceeds that was being that were being used to repay well we have testimony from cox for example on page three sixty eight where cox is discussing receiving the one nine hundred thousand dollars and in a manner similar to how the drug proceeds wer asked did he describe why he was giving you the one nine hundred thousand dollars in cash cox's response was i was to carry it to papa the next question is why what was the purpose of it well part of it was to help get another boy out of jail and to buy a camper and then he goes on to explain that the purpose of the camper like the purpose of the boat and the and the fifth avenue trailer was to rotate these vehicles out and transportation of the drug money from north carolina to texas and drugs from texas up to north carolina was the date of the conspiracy the date of the drug conspiracy or the money laundering law the money laundering conspiracy  jury could have drawn reasonable inferences in support of names name a specific but i think first we have information about the relationship between the defendant and castillo we know that that relationship predates the involvement of cox as exhibits of the conspiracy all the evidence you're trying to establish is fault for juries finding that there was somebody in that conspiracy and chores older than conspirators well we have information about their business dealings which is why you know we have a lengthy relationship between the two men we know that the defendant and castillo were frequently and contact conspiracy of money laundering can you be specific to that unfortunately in that we don't have a specific conversation where you know what i don't think is a very effective argument for you to start think we have that evidence of the relationship between these two men there's indications that as a general matter the defendant and castillo were sharing information and they were making decisions of the conspiracy is a determinative in all in my opinion you could have somebody in the conspiracy this in a conspiracy as it exists before the charge date and continue to be in that conspiracy from that day forward that i'm sure that should theory and i think that's completely acceptable in my view but you have to show evidence as to the conspiracy chores on money laundering there has to be some evidence from which the jury could find that there was somebody other than care other than the government agent who's in that conspiracy who understands this drug proceeds that are being used as one of the elements and you say you have that in what you said something that some general purchase of the fifth avenue trailer and there's the statement by the agent to that effect we know that cox explains that he was provided the nineteen thousand dollars cash papa and that part of it was to get a boy out of prison and then another part of it was to buy the camper and we know that the camper fits into this general plan that they have established through their conduct that say the jury could find the only source of proceeds would be drug proceeds and then that is your argument on how you know to bars as the conspirator knew it is that it i'm not i don't believe that that is the entire argument i mean this is trying to make we also have again there's indications in the record that there was cornish and between the defendant and castillo regarding the travel of the money is the travel of the drugs the payment of certain money as to cox for example the payment for a particular trip and that we have evidence that these sorts of conversations were occurring between the defendant and past year of us which indicates again that they were both very involved in the drug trafficking conspiracy hands you have to show more than general involvement that my suffice for drug they're generally discussing about drug amounts and all that isn't that the my mind doesn't really go to the element of the drug proceeds being used for promotional drug money laundering of course is the standard of review any reasonable and friends has to be drawn in support of the jury's verdict and the government's position is that in addition to the information about the purchase of the fifth avenue trailer the statements cox made regarding the transportation of the money for the purchased the second trailer the fleet would trailer we do have circumstantial evidence that goes to the quality of the relationship between these two men and given that nature of the relationship it would be reasonable to infer that mr castillo was aware and encouraged this reinvestment we also know for example that mr christie and his and his associates were ready and prepared to receive these trailers to modify them and  go to the quality of the relationship the fact that there is evidence that these decisions were jointly maint between the two men that they were in frequent contact about various aspects of their business dealings and that it would be reasonable to infer given the purchase of the first trailer that mr custer you know was involved in aware of but it was likewise reasonable that he is involved in aware of the second purchase of the trailer and we know that there was no legitimate source of money so your answer to your argument would be different if the defendant in addition to being a drug dealer was a stock schemer and so he had two sources of revenue is that is that what it comes down to you're saying because there's no evidence of any other source of income throughout the entire period of the drug conspiracy a discrete transaction in the course of that drug conspiracy is sufficient to prove money laundering conspiracy  record that he has a legitimate job so it is reasonable to believe and the jury was free to find that to prove that the right so you keep saying there's nothing in the record but a defendant doesn't have to prove anything  y but on this record given the fact that the only evidence we have about the defendant earning the only evidence you produced yes so how does that support a reasonable inference that there's no other in at any time during this entire period you don't have tax returns you know to have some positive evidence that you have searched the normal conventions of reporting income to say that he doesn't but as in this case it's not even the purchase wasn't to clean it up it was it seemed to me that the evidence even the drug part of what they were using these things to retrofit it so it could be a carrier for a drunk that's that's far from laundering it making it laundry in a long minute problem with the unlawful drug activity now i was researching money is what you convert the money in to just laundering as you know you will get profit from it i mean that's that's there if you it's not alarming if you took the money and just sort of put it on your mattress and just held onto or you just holding a large ring is doing something a transaction to clean it to wash it through so that one would now be able to determine the illegal source of so i'm saying they're doing everything but that they're putting it into a further compartment or vehicle or whatever for contraband to be you could almost say it's really not laundering is really necessary to to complete their their their modus operandi the way they operate in because you know you buy you buy the book you fix it up so you can put drugs in it cool and all that kind of thing and you do that retrofitted and you bring it back here i don't want to drive i don't but go ahead but i do think your honor is seeing and there are there are problematic is and you better answer that question boldly if you know the answer to it washer answer to his question when he goes that point to say good gracious judges nothing to do with washing money washing these proceeds issues enough for continued drug activities to the government do they not know and and that i  did the government do it now doesn't the government have an obligation to get it right yes now may i ask one question sort of just over what happens in this case  we do in a case if count one is appropriate and the rests or subject to plain error that we recognize what's the what's the result of the trial what i mean what we what we do with a count once fine but nothing else special assessments on the other counts would me i think it depends on what problem your honor is identifying if you're saying that this assuming the court finds a sufficiency problem those counts would be done but as i understood about charging problem the charging problem that would result in every man for every trial on those counts i see that my time is up thank you and i ask that your firm the judgment promotion but you know he kind of but what was the charge in the indictment the charge an indictment was promoted to a motion yes or so the indictment charged but the judge only his own charge don't con you know i think that part of this for both the government and the defense counsel in this case was the judge did not it would did not give counsel a copy of written and strong in ash to that now that's not what i asked yes he did need help about did he tell it to the jury about promotional money don there was a mention of that along the way but i mean i think the overall flavor is a name i'm not asking about the overall flavor because you can read that little bit too yes we can we can all agree i think if you read the record he did in fact charge on concealment money laundering yesterday and i think we can probably all agree that that has nothing to do with this case all right yes but he also it's also fair to say he talked about promotional money laundering yes i don't think it was sufficient or it was confusing or whatever that's right and that and that is you know a real problem in this case the court asked counsel the government about what evidence there was about korea knowing about though this particular trailer and there's no evidence in this record about that the what the government's argument i mean no no i didn't ask that question yes i asked a question about him knowing about purchase of other items that we use that had been used like this trail and i don't think there's evidence of that either your honor but ultimately would come down to the government's argue i think the government's argument on the evidence we have in this case is if he's a part of the drug conspiracy that's enough to infer that he's a part of the money laundering can so there's not why she said or she said was based on the evidence that this is what she said that it was this is what she said based be that the gravity of her argument is that i think she said mr ms fritz two or three times due to the quantity quality the quality of their relationship and drug trafficking is a reasonable  drawn that they would have known these things over almost you know foreseeable it was it that's tantamount i think to saying well he's guilty of anything that the other people do because he just knows a problem on the conspiracy was that you know there wasn't really a separate conspiracy instructions for the two types of conspiracies being alleged he kind of incorporated it all together our argument is basically it let me say this to you i understand your tactic i certainly do because you you know what we know which is why judge davis said thirty years on that everything under it honestly is hard to say but those sentences my reading your honor is that you know this was a very very sloppy jury a set of jury instructions there were multiple problems if you read through it is not the common one i've had on either drug conspiracies are things and at the end of it i don't understand how a jury could reasonably understand what's their response to be doing on the various charges given the amount of confusion and in in the jury instructions and the way they were