2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-21-2008 

# U SA v . Y u s u f
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3308

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Y us u f " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 754. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/754P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 3308

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; G O V ER N M EN T O F TH E V I RG I N I SLA N D S, A p p e llan ts

v. FA TH I Y U SU F M O H A M M ED Y U SU F a / ka FA TH I Y U SU F; WALE E D M OHAMM E D HAMED a / k / a WALL Y HAMED; W A H EED M O H A M M ED H A M ED a / k/ a W I LLI E Y U SU F; M A H ER FA TH I Y U SU F a / k/ a M I K E Y U SU F; I SA M M O H A M A D Y O U SU F a / k/ a SA M Y O U SEF; UNI T E D C OR P OR AT I ON, d /b / a P L AZ A E XT RA ;

NE J E H F AT HI YUS UF

O n A ppeal fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands

( D i vi s i on of St
. C r oi x) N o. 05- cr - 00015 D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. R aym ond L
. Fi nch

A r gued D ece m ber11, 2007

B efor e: SM I T H , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 17, 2008)2

R O T H , C i rcui t Judge:
OR DE R A M E ND I NG OP I NI ON I T I S ORDE RE D t h att he publ i s hed O pi ni on i n t he above cas e, fi l ed on J une 17, 20 08 , be am end ed as fo l l ow s: O n page 18, del et e t he f ol l ow i ng se nt ence: A c c o r d in g ly , w e re c o g n ize th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s h o ld in g in S an tos o v erru les t h is C o u rt ’s de cisi o n I U nited S t ates v. G rasso , w h ic h w as re lie d u p o n b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. G rasso , 3 8 1 F. 3d 160, 169 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hat“pr ocee ds , ’ as t hatt erm i s us ed i n t he money l aunder i ng s t atue, m ea n s g ross rec eipts [f

rom il lega l acti v ity ] rather tha t pro fit s”). and, at t he end of

t he now - s hort ened paragraph, i nsert a n ew foot not e 12, f ol l ow i ng ex i s t i ng f

oot not e 11, as f

ol l ow s : I n Sant os , a four

- J us t i ce pl ur al i t yconcl uded that , i n appl y i ng t he rul e of l eni t y , t he w or d “pr ocee ds ” i n t he moneyl aunder i ng stat ut e means pr ofi t s and not , as t he governm ent had ar gued, gr os s r ece i pt s . 128 S. C t
. at 2 0 2 3 -2 5 (p lu ra lityo p in io n ). Ju stic e S tev e n s, th e tie-b re a k e r, to o k th e v iew in h i s c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n t h a t , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e i m p o r to f l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y, pr ocee ds m aym ean pr ofi t s as appl i ed t o s om e s peci fi ed unl aw ful act i vi t i es and g ro s s re c e ip ts a s a p p lie d to o th e rs . 1 2 8 S
. C t . a t 2 0 3 1 -3 2 (S te v e n s , J ., concur r i ng ); s ee i d. at2 0 3 0 ( s t at i ng t hat“J us t i ce STE V E N S expr es s es t he vi ew t hatt he rul e of l eni t yappl i es t o t hi s cas e becaus e t her e i s no l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yr efl ect i ng anyl egi s l at or ' s bel i ef a bouthow t he money -l aunder i ng statu te sh o u ld ap p lyto lott eryo p era tors”) ( c i t i ng i d. at2032- 33)
. A s t he pl ur al i t yr ecogni zed, “[s ] i nce hi s vot e i s nece s s ary t o ourj udgement , and s i nce h is o p in io n re s ts u p o n th e n a rr o w e r g ro u n d , th e C o u rt ’s h o ld in g is lim ite d ... ,” t o t he hol di ng “.
. . t hat‘ pr ocee ds ’ m eans ‘ pr ofi t s ’ w hen ther e i s no l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yt o t he contr ary . ” 128 S. C t
. at2031 ( ci t i ng M arks v. U ni t ed Stat es , 430 U .S . 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 (1 9 7 7 ))
. In v iew o f

th e a b o v e d isc u ss io n , w e b e liev e th a t Sant os o v e rru les th is C our t ' s deci s i on i n U

nited S t ates v. G rasso , w hi ch w as r el i ed up o n b ythe D is tr ic t C o u rt in th e i n s t a n t c a s e . G rasso , 381 F. 3d 160, 169 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hat“ ‘ pr ocee ds , ’ as t hatt erm i s us ed i n t he moneyl aunder i ng s t atut e,3

m e a n s g ro s s re c e ip ts [ f

ro m ille g a l a c tiv ity] ra th e r t h a n p ro f its ” ). A s t hi s amendm entdoes notchange t he or i gi nal di s pos i t i on byt he pane l , t he dat e of t he or i gi nal j udgm entdat e w i l l notbe al t er ed. B yth e C o u rt,

/ s /J ane R. R ot h C i r cui tJ udge

D at ed: J ul y21, 2008