NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

No. 12-1976

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Appellant

v.

JAMES UGOH

_____________

No. 12-1883

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Appellant

v.

KAYODE KASSIM

_____________

No. 12-1884

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Appellant

v.

ABEL OGUNFUNWA
2

_____________

No. 12-2585

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Appellant

v.

FELIX MORDI 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

(District Court Nos. 1-09-cr-00356-4,

1-09-cr-00356-1, 1-09-cr-00356-3,

1-09-cr-00356-2)

District Judge: The Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 14, 2013

Before: SMITH, FISHER, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 1, 2013 )

 

_____________________

 OPINION

_____________________ 

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

The United States of America brings this consolidated appeal challenging 

the District Court’s application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines when 
3

determining the appropriate term of imprisonment for co-defendants James Ugoh, 

Kayode Kassim, Abel Ogunfunwa, and Feliz Mordi. Specifically, the United States 

argues the District Court erred by refusing to apply a two-level enhancement 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) and a separate two-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(3). For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the sentences 

imposed by the District Court and remand for resentencing.

I.

Ugoh, Kassim, Ogunfunwa, and Mordi were each participants in a 

Canadian-based money laundering scheme directed at American citizens. Between 

2004 and 2009, unknown Canadian mass marketing fraudsters distributed 

thousands of letters and counterfeit checks through the mail to addresses in the 

United States. Those letters falsely promised cash, prizes, fictitious loans, 

commissions, and other payments to their recipients. Based on such promises, the 

letters induced the recipients to send a portion of their “winnings,” representing 

taxes and other bogus fees, to the scammers via a MoneyGram money transfer 

service. The defendants, each of whom owned or operated one or more 

MoneyGram outlets, conspired to intercept and launder the fraudulently-induced 

transfers and to distribute the proceeds.

On October 28, 2009, a grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

returned a single fifty-five count indictment against all four defendants. The 
4

indictment charged the defendants with various counts of mail fraud in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1341, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and money 

laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. The indictment also charged the 

defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and 

money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. All four of the defendants 

ultimately entered into plea agreements with the government, under which they 

agreed to plead guilty to two counts contained in the indictment: (1) the charge of 

conspiring to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, and (2) a 

single mail fraud charge.

After the defendants entered into their respective plea agreements, the 

United States Probation Office prepared pre-sentence reports for the District 

Court’s use during sentencing. Of sole relevance on appeal, the Probation Office 

included two separate two-level enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 for each of 

the four defendants. The first enhancement was based on § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B), which 

provides a two-level increase if a defendant is convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 

1956. The second was the enhancement set forth in § 2S1.1(b)(3), which provides 

for an additional two-level increase if § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) applies and the offense 

involved “sophisticated laundering.” 

All four defendants objected to the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 

2S1.1(b)(2)(B) on the grounds that they had not been convicted of violating 18 
5

U.S.C. § 1956. They likewise objected to the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 

2S1.1(b)(3) for sophisticated money laundering since § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) is a 

prerequisite for that provision. The United States countered that, under Application 

Note 6 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, a defendant is considered “convicted” of violating 18 

U.S.C. § 1956 for purposes of the enhancements not only if he is convicted of the 

actual statutory offense, but also if he is convicted of conspiring to violate the 

statute, as was the case for each of the defendants. The District Court rejected the 

United States’ argument and refused to apply both enhancements, citing what it 

perceived to be an internal conflict between the two paragraphs in Application 

Note 6 and the plain language of § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B). The United States filed a timely 

notice of appeal with respect to each of the four sentences.

II.

We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing 

Guidelines. United States v. Richards, 674 F.3d 215, 218 (3d Cir. 2012); see also 

United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 570 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc) (exercising 

plenary review over a district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines).1

III.

We turn first to the District Court’s refusal to apply the two-level 

enhancement contained in U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B). This Guideline provides that 

 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and we have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b).
6

a two-level enhancement should be imposed “[i]f the defendant was convicted 

under 18 U.S.C. § 1956.” U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B). The defendants argue that 

this two-level enhancement should not apply here because they were not 

“convicted” of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956, but rather were merely convicted under 

18 U.S.C. § 371 of conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C § 1956. The government 

contends that, under Application Note 6 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, a conviction for 

conspiracy to commit the underlying offense is sufficient for purposes of applying 

the enhancement under § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B).

Under the law of this circuit, application notes to the Sentencing Guidelines 

are afforded “controlling weight” unless they violate the Constitution, a federal 

statute, or are plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. United States v. 

Lianidis, 599 F.3d 273, 278 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Stinson v. United States, 508 

U.S. 36, 47 (1993)). The government cites to Application Note 6 as set out in the 

commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3—the generally applicable guideline related to

factors that determine a defendant’s range of punishment. This Note provides in 

pertinent part:

A particular guideline (in the base offense level or in a specific 

offense characteristic) may expressly direct that a particular factor be 

applied only if the defendant was convicted of a particular statute. For 

example, in § 2S1.1 (Laundering of Monetary Instruments; Engaging 

in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Unlawful 

Activity), subsection (b)(2)(B) applies if the defendant “was convicted 

under 18 U.S.C. § 1956”. . . .
7

Unless otherwise specified, an express direction to apply a 

particular factor only if the defendant was convicted of a particular 

statute includes the determination of the offense level where the 

defendant was convicted of conspiracy, attempt, solicitation, aiding or 

abetting, accessory after the fact, or misprision of felony in respect to 

that particular statute. For example, § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) (which is 

applicable only if the defendant is convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956) 

would be applied in determining the offense level under § 2X3.1 

(Accessory After the Fact) in a case in which the defendant was 

convicted of accessory after the fact to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 

. . . .

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. App. Note. 6 (emphasis added).

We find no ambiguity in the language of Application Note 6. Rather, as 

illuminated by the emphasized portion above, the Note plainly states that when an 

enhancement requires conviction of a certain statute, such requirement is satisfied 

“where the defendant was convicted of conspiracy” to violate “that particular 

statute.” Id. This is exactly the scenario presented in this case. The relevant 

guideline, § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B), provides for a two level enhancement when a 

defendant is convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1956. The defendants here pled 

guilty to, and were convicted of, conspiring to violate § 1956. Under these facts, 

the enhancement undoubtedly applies.

The defendants contend that our plain reading of Application Note 6 stands 

in conflict with the text of U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B), which requires the defendant 

be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Although § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B), on its face, 

requires a conviction of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 before applying the two-level 
8

enhancement, nothing in the text of that provision establishes what constitutes a 

“conviction,” nor does the text explicitly require a conviction of the substantive 

terms of the statute. By defining the parameters of the term “conviction” to include 

convictions for conspiracy to commit the identified statute, Application Note 6 

brings clarity where U.S.S.G § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) is otherwise silent. This point is 

most evident with respect to U.S.S.G § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B), since Application Note 6 

specifically uses its applicability to § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) as an illustrative example 

demonstrating its operation.

It is of no significance that, for purposes of an entry of judgment, the 

defendants were technically convicted of conspiracy pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 371. 

Section 371 is the general federal conspiracy statute which makes it illegal to 

“conspire . . . to commit any offense against the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 371. 

Count I of the indictment—which charges the defendants with conspiracy under 18 

U.S.C. § 371—explicitly references 18 U.S.C. § 1956 when setting out “laundering 

of monetary instruments” as one of the “offenses” that the defendants conspired to 

commit. See Indictment, Count I, ¶ 9. The defendants pled guilty to this count, and 

therefore, for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines, are deemed to have been 

convicted of conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1956.

As plainly demonstrated by the text of Application Note 6, the Sentencing 

Commission intended the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) 
9

to apply where a defendant has been convicted of conspiracy to commit money 

laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Ugoh, Kassim, Ogunfunwa, and 

Mordi were each so convicted, and thus the District Court erred by rejecting the 

United States’ request to apply § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B)’s two-level enhancement to their 

sentences.

The District Court likewise erred by refusing to apply the two-level 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(3). This guideline provides for an 

additional two level enhancement if § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) applies and the offense 

involved “sophisticated laundering.” In reviewing the transcript from the various 

sentencing hearings, it appears the District Court agreed with the United States’ 

argument that the defendants’ criminal activity involved “sophisticated 

laundering.” However, the District Court refused to apply the enhancement based 

on its preliminary determination that § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B)—which acts as a 

prerequisite to § 2S1.1(b)(3)—did not apply. As described above, this conclusion 

was incorrect, and accordingly the District Court’s rejection of the enhancement 

under § 2S1.1(b)(3) was in error. 

Importantly, we do not hold that the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 

2S1.1(b)(3) necessarily applies to the facts of this case. Instead, we simply find the 

basis for the District Court’s rejection of the § 2S1.1(b)(3) enhancement was 

legally incorrect. Whether the offense for which the defendants were convicted 
10

involved “sophisticated laundering” is a question we leave in the capable hands of 

the District Court for consideration and resolution on remand.

IV.

For the reasons described above, we will vacate the sentences for all four of 

the defendants, and we will remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion.