under the control of the gambler and it was evidenced by a one million dollars amount that was given to mr silver and the gambler one of the money back and the  when does the money that was transferred to mistress of her when does that become proceeds under the money laundering statute such as to trigger a money laundering violation incorporates state law and they reference california penal code section three hundred and thirty seven dollars a which makes it illegal to receive hold or forward whatsoever any money involved in sports gambling it's involved in sports gambling once he receives it even if he you know claims to be an intermediary so at that point it's it's proceeds isn't all of those cases under that section your honor are people who are employed by the bookmaker who receive the money not this is not like you give the money to your friends and say go pay it isn't every case to say he said that the language doesn't mean what it says and doesn't extend to this situation with those kids what so when you read those cases those cases say that those people that receive those moneys were employed or working for the the bookmaking operation that's not what we have here i think that the the intent of the statute was to go after bookmakers not people that paid money on behalf of the gambler that's participating as is the gambler participating the gambler was participating in the illegal sports book making operation but he wasn't but he was violating the money laundering statute so he was no more then a then the gambler was the participation just as a gambler participated in the operation be legal gambling business by placing bets because that's that's right and that's what that's what it that's that's where the malpractise  was the money didn't come from any legal sportsbook to making operations money from what so very new came from a legitimate source no independent knowledge that the money came from any legal source the money laundering statutes want to trace monies that come from the legal sources as to how they cleanse how the money gets cleansed this and nothing to do please the court good morning honors jerry yang on behalf of the united states of defendant here is challenging his the dial of the district court's denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and doing so he has the burden to errors he would not have pleaded guilty and what happened system going to trial now he cannot demonstrate both prongs he can't even demonstrate one prong as for the st prong deficient performance defendant essentially argues that coun this agency defense all of these arguments yawners are based on his unsupported and self serving claims that he was an agent of the gambler the evidence in the record however shows that defendant was part of the illegal gambling operation f there is substantial evidence in the record that he is part of this gambling organization at least an agent of this gambling organization but even as your honor points out even if he somehow had this independent business so to the funds did become proceeds once it left the gambler gamblers possession and into defendants accounts or in the eight i'm done buying during the underlying prosecution did the government  and fifty five incorporates state law on defining the illegal gambling operation and that the smell of in state laws the thirty seven a was i never spelled out or set forth any and in  person by the name of initials in which he made substantial claims of being involved in bookmaker dot com now defendant challenges the truthfulness of that e mail by saying basically he was lying to d s in order bubble to d s i think it substantial evidence that he was in fact involved in illegal gambling secondly there's this memorandum of an interview of the actual better involved in this case and then in that particular interview the better specifically stated that he used defendant to place bets on sporting events and that he at that time old so there are about three million dollars that doesn't sound like somebody better who who who has defended as somehow agent that sounds like somebody who is betting with  that itself doesn't establish anything because if defendant is what the evidence suggests which is that he's a part of the gambling organization that actually is correct advice that the monies he handled were tainted and so he's failed thousand that came in constituted that that converted the money into proceeds the moment it hit his accounts and then the three dollars subsequent transfers which are to be charged counts those constitute the money yes and i would point the court to the definition of proceeds which obviously was mended after the santos decision to include gross receipts the definition of proceeds is it's it's very broad question i have has to in the plea agreement the factual basis for the plead describes the procedure and since the proceeds were generated by the illegal sports betting business in which theory i i i i guess the argument if i were to tease up a nuance would be that the government believes that the defendant was at at a minimum an agent of the gambling organization  but even if he were as good as on put it if you were a some sort of independent broker in between that that would nevertheless still qualify for the statute so i don't know if that answers that may be right i mean may be that it's still covered by the statute in so maybe there's no prejudice but it's very hard reading this to think that anyone was thinking at three hundred and thirty seven dollars a is the theory and it's not mentioned and then the six that he was involved and operated and it legal gambling operation which well but he'd heard had to be proceeds that fit all the elements and other than three hundred and thirty seven i am not sure i see how this could have been put together well i disagree with the interpretation that i saw there receiving the money from the gambler and holding that money that's a violation of state