2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-21-2008

USA v. Yusuf

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 07-3308

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Yusuf" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 754.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/754
 PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-3308

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS,

 Appellants

 v.

FATHI YUSUF MOHAMMED YUSUF a/ka FATHI YUSUF;

WALEED MOHAMMED HAMED a/k/a WALLY HAMED;

WAHEED MOHAMMED HAMED a/k/a WILLIE YUSUF;

MAHER FATHI YUSUF a/k/a MIKE YUSUF;

ISAM MOHAMAD YOUSUF a/k/a SAM YOUSEF;

UNITED CORPORATION, d/b/a PLAZA EXTRA;

NEJEH FATHI YUSUF

 

On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands

(Division of St. Croix)

No. 05-cr-00015

 District Judge: Hon. Raymond L. Finch

 

Argued December 11, 2007

Before: SMITH, NYGAARD and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed June 17, 2008)
2

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case, filed on June 17,

2008, be amended as follows:

On page 18, delete the following sentence:

 Accordingly, we recognize that the Supreme Court’s holding in

Santos overrules this Court’s decision I United States v. Grasso, which was

relied upon by the District Court. Grasso, 381 F.3d 160, 169 (3d Cir. 2004)

(holding that “proceeds,’ as that term is used in the money laundering statue,

means gross receipts [from illegal activity] rather that profits”).

and, at the end of the now-shortened paragraph, insert a new footnote 12,

following existing footnote 11, as follows:

 In Santos, a four-Justice plurality concluded that, in applying the

rule of lenity, the word “proceeds” in the money laundering statute means

profits and not, as the government had argued, gross receipts. 128 S. Ct. at

2023-25 (plurality opinion). Justice Stevens, the tie-breaker, took the view in

his concurring opinion that, depending on the import of legislative history,

proceeds may mean profits as applied to some specified unlawful activities and

gross receipts as applied to others. 128 S. Ct. at 2031-32 (Stevens, J.,

concurring); see id. at 2030 (stating that “Justice STEVENS expresses the

view that the rule of lenity applies to this case because there is no legislative

history reflecting any legislator's belief about how the money-laundering

statute should apply to lottery operators”) (citing id. at 2032-33). As the

plurality recognized, “[s]ince his vote is necessary to our judgement, and since

his opinion rests upon the narrower ground, the Court’s holding is limited... ,”

to the holding “... that ‘proceeds’ means ‘profits’ when there is no legislative

history to the contrary.” 128 S. Ct. at 2031 (citing Marks v. United States, 430

U.S. 188, 193 (1977)). 

In view of the above discussion, we believe that Santos overrules this

Court's decision in United States v. Grasso, which was relied upon by the

District Court in the instant case. Grasso, 381 F.3d 160, 169 (3d Cir.2004)

(holding that “ ‘proceeds,’ as that term is used in the money laundering statute,
3

means gross receipts [from illegal activity] rather than profits”). 

As this amendment does not change the original disposition by the panel, the date of

the original judgment date will not be altered.

 

By the Court,

 /s/ Jane R. Roth 

 Circuit Judge

Dated: July 21, 2008