Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03988/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03988-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amin A. Rashid
Appellant
Warden Philadelphia FDC
Appellee

Document Text:

CLD-190 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-3988

____________

AMIN A. RASHID,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN PHILADELPHIA FDC

__________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-12-cv-05313)

District Judge: Jan E. DuBois

__________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 7, 2015

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 11, 2015)

____________

OPINION*

____________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3988 Document: 003111987764 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
2

Amin A. Rashid appeals from an order of the District Court denying his petition 

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we 

will summarily affirm.

Rashid was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania in December, 1993 of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and 

laundering proceeds, in a scheme that involved defrauding 47 persons of at least $1.6 

million. The Indictment stated that Rashid used aliases and corporate entities that he 

owned, including Amin A. Rashid and Associates (“AAR”) and SEMCO Capital 

Corporation (“SEMCO”), to defraud potential borrowers. Specifically, the Indictment 

charged that he solicited customers seeking sizable commercial loans, and that he signed 

“consulting agreements” with those customers obligating him to use his “best efforts” to 

secure financing from an alleged lending source, usually one of the corporate entities he 

owned, such as SEMCO. The Indictment also charged that he, through SEMCO or 

another corporate entity he owned, then required payment of “advance fees” for financing 

that he did not intend to obtain. Rashid was sentenced in May, 1994 to a term of 

imprisonment of 168 months, to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. We 

affirmed the criminal judgment on August 4, 1995 in United States v. Rashid, C.A. No. 

93-2241. 

In November, 1995, Rashid filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 

challenging the conviction and sentence. The motion was denied in February, 1996, and 

we affirmed in December, 1996, United States v. Rashid, C.A. No. 96-1244. After that, 

Rashid filed numerous challenges to his conviction and sentence, all of which were 

Case: 14-3988 Document: 003111987764 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
3

unsuccessful. Rashid was released from custody in September, 2005 to his term of 

supervised release.

While on supervised release, Rashid engaged in conduct which led to a new 

indictment on two counts of mail fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft in the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United States v. 

Rashid, D.C. Crim. No. 08-cr-00493. In May, 2009, a Superseding Indictment charged 

Rashid with ten counts of mail fraud, eight counts of aggravated identity theft, and one 

count of passing an altered postal money order. The Superseding Indictment alleged that 

Rashid defrauded clients of his company, the Center for Constitutional and Criminal 

Justice, by accepting fees to stop or reverse Sheriff’s sales, or to recover proceeds from 

Sheriff’s sales, while in fact performing none of these services. Rashid also stole his 

clients’ identities. Following a jury trial, Rashid was convicted of nine counts of mail 

fraud and eight counts of aggravated identity theft. Rashid was sentenced in July, 2013 

to a total term of imprisonment of 240 months, to be followed by 5 years of supervised 

release. We affirmed the criminal judgment on November 25, 2014, United States v. 

Rashid, 593 F. App’x 132 (3d Cir. 2014).

As a result of his most recent convictions, the United States Probation Office 

charged Rashid with violating the conditions of his 1994 term of supervised release. In 

response, Rashid filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, again 

challenging his 1993 conviction and sentence. Rashid argued that United States v. 

Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), rendered his money laundering conduct non-criminal. 

Specifically, Rashid argued that his convictions should be vacated because Santos

Case: 14-3988 Document: 003111987764 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
4

requires that laundered “proceeds” be derived from criminal profits, and his convictions 

were based on the use of the laundered proceeds to pay the expenses of his crimes, such 

as rent and employee salaries. During closing arguments, the Government argued to the 

jury that it had proven money laundering beyond a reasonable doubt because “money 

received from a victim” was used “to pay the salaries of SEMCO employees,” N.T., 

12/23/93, at 49, and that Rashid used “accounts not only of SEMCO, but of [AAR] to pay 

for the office and the office rent for the other company that he controlled, Capital 

Guarantee,” id. at 48. In an order entered on August 22, 2014, the District Court denied 

Rashid’s § 2241 petition on the merits, and later denied a timely motion for 

reconsideration in an order entered on September 12, 2014.

Rashid appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our Clerk granted 

him leave to appeal in forma pauperis and advised him that the appeal was subject to 

summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary action under Third Cir. 

LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. We previously denied Rashid’s emergency motion to stay a 

revocation hearing that had been scheduled for April 16, 2015 in the District Court.

We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial 

question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. As 

explained by the District Court, Santos does not render Rashid’s money laundering 

conduct non-criminal. In Santos, the Supreme Court reviewed the money laundering 

convictions of two defendants for their role in operating an illegal lottery. 553 U.S. at 

509-10 (plurality opinion). At issue was whether “proceeds” under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 

applied only to profits of unlawful activity, rather than receipts. Finding the undefined 

Case: 14-3988 Document: 003111987764 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
5

term ambiguous, a four-Justice plurality applied the rule of lenity, resulting in its 

conclusion that “proceeds” should be defined as “profits.” Id. at 514. The plurality also 

explained that interpreting “proceeds” to mean receipts would create a “merger problem” 

because “nearly every violation of [an] illegal-lottery statute would also be a violation of 

the money-laundering statute.” Id. at 515 (internal quotation marks omitted). Concurring 

in the judgment, Justice Stevens agreed that receipts from an illegal gambling business 

were not “proceeds” within the meaning of the money laundering statute and agreed that 

such an interpretation would create a “merger” problem. Id. at 527-28 (Stevens, J., 

concurring in the judgment).

 The District Court began its discussion in Rashid’s case by correctly noting that, 

when no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, as was 

the case in Santos, the holding of the case is limited to the narrowest ground supporting 

the result, Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977). The District Court then set 

forth the elements of mail and wire fraud, and stated that the issue in Rashid’s case was 

whether “proceeds” means “profits from the artifice or scheme to defraud,” or instead 

means “profits from use of the mail or an interstate wire communication.” United States 

v. Rashid, 39 F. Supp.3d 649, 653 (E.D. Pa. 2014). The Court held that, in Rashid’s case, 

proceeds means profits from the mail and wire fraud, explaining that:

In this case, the “unlawful activity” that generated the laundered “proceeds” 

was mail and wire fraud. Mail and wire fraud are completed crimes when 

the mail or wire communication is sent. Thus, the “essential expenses” of 

mail and wire fraud are costs incurred in sending mail or interstate wire 

communications, not, as defendant argues, the expense of maintaining the 

scheme or artifice to defraud. By paying the expenses of his artifice or 

scheme to defraud, through payment of salaries and rent, [Rashid] 

Case: 14-3988 Document: 003111987764 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
6

laundered profits from completed mail and wire fraud to facilitate future 

crimes. 

Id. at 654 (citations and footnote omitted).

We agree with the District Court’s analysis. Here, the payments were not essential 

elements of the completed fraud offenses and there is no merger problem. The 

Government was not required to prove that the transactions at issue (payment of salaries 

and rent) involved net profits. “Proceeds” means “net profits” only where a merger 

problem increases a defendant’s sentencing exposure in a way that Congress could not 

have intended.1 As the District Court noted in the margin, under Rashid’s interpretation 

of Santos, “the proponent of a pyramid scheme charged with mail or wire fraud could 

never be prosecuted for money laundering because a pyramid scheme is premised on 

making the artifice or scheme to defraud appear profitable when, in fact, it is not.” Id. at 

654 n.1. 

The District Court also summarily denied as meritless Rashid’s claim that an 

amendment to his Indictment caused it to expire, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and § 2244(b)(3)(A) a claim that the loss issue should 

have been determined by a jury. We summarily affirm these determinations, which do 

not require discussion. 

 

1 Section 1956 now defines “proceeds” as “any property derived from or obtained or 

retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including the 

gross receipts of such activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(9). See also United States v. 

Richardson, 658 F.3d 333, 339 n.4 (2011). At the time Rashid was indicted, however, the 

term “proceeds” was undefined. The statutory definition thus does not apply here.

Case: 14-3988 Document: 003111987764 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
7

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the orders of the District 

Court denying Rashid’s § 2241 petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Case: 14-3988 Document: 003111987764 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/11/2015