2010 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 6-30-2010 

# U SA v . Li li an M uno z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3416

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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 ll anova 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . L i l i an M uno z " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1096. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1096NOT P 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. 08- 3416

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. LI LI AN M UN OZ, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 2- 08- cr - 00156- 002) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . Jo sep h A . G ree n aw ay , Jr.

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 29, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2010)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. L i l i an M unoz ( “Li l i an”) , w ho pl ed gui l t yt o cons pi r acyt o comm i tm oney l aunder i ng contr aryt o 18 U . S. C . § 1956( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1956( h) chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes t o hers ent ence . I. I n M ay2007, I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “I C E ”) agent s obs erved L ili a n a n d h e r h u sb a n d E v e ra d o A n to n io M u n o z (“ E v e ra d o ” ) a s th e ye x ited th e ir apart m entbui l di ng i n W eeha w ken, N ew J er s ey . T he I C E agent s appr oache d t he coupl e, a n d o b ta in e d c o n s e n t to s e a rc h th e la rg e b la c k d u f f le b a g th a t E v e ra d o w a s c a rr y in g . I ns i de w as $390, 010 i n cas h w r apped i n rubberbands . T he age nt s found another $ 3 7 8 ,5 5 0 in c a sh b u t “v e rylittle c lo th in g , fo o d o r f u rn itu re ” in th e ir a p a rtm e n t, P res entence Invest i gati on R epo rt(“PS R ”) at¶ 11 , and i n L i l i an’s purse $5, 05 7 in cash w r apped i n w hi t e napki ns , a not ebook thatappea r ed t o cont ai n r ecor ds of m oney l aunder i ng t r ans act i ons , and a c el l phone. E v e ra d o late r to ld in ter v iew e rs o f th e p ro b a tio n o f

f ice th a t h e w a s re c ru ited to l aunderm oneyw hi l e vi s i t i ng C ol om bi a the pr evi ous y ear , t hathe bel i eved the moneyw as p o ten tial d ru g m o n e y , an d th a t h e h a d b e e n e x p e c tin g a c a ll o n th e c e ll p h o n e f o u n d in L ili a n ’s p u rse f

ro m th e in d iv id u a l to w h o m h e w a s s u p p o se d to d e liv e r th e m o n e yin Q ueen s, N ew Y ork. E verado al so cl ai m ed thathis w i fe kn ew no t hing of his act i vit i es. L i l i an t ol d heri nt ervi ew er s of the pr obat i on offi ce thats he w as acc om pany i ng her3

hus band butas s er t ed thats he di d notknow w hatherhus band w as doi ng and, w hen as ked w hats he thoughthe w as doi ng m eet i ng peopl e “i n parki ng l ot s and gi vi ng t hem bags, s he s m i l ed and s hrugged hers houl der s and gave no r es pons e. ” PSR at¶ 22. A l t hough s he w as as ked thats ame ques t i on s ever al t i m es , s he r efus ed t o ans w er . L i l i an al s o t ol d her i nt ervi ew er s t hatherhus band had gi ven hert he ce l l phone the dayt hatI C E i nt er cept ed t hem, and thats he knew not hi ng m or e abouti t . “A t[that ] t i m e, ” the phone be gan t o r i ng w i t h a ca l l fr om t he s ame phone num bert hatw as w r i t t en on a pos t - i tnot e found i ns i de L ili a n ’s a d d re ss b o o k n e x t to a “ c o d e . . . fo r th e d e liv e ryo f th e c a sh a n d th e lo c a tio n in Q ueens . ” PSR at¶ 23. L i l i an and Ever ado w er e i ndi ct ed forcons pi r acyt o l aunderm oneyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1956( h) and both pl ed gui l t y . L i l i an’ s pl ea a gr eements peci fi cal l ynot ed that ats ent enci ng s he w oul d cont es t : ( 1) w hetherhergui del i nes cal cul at i on s houl d be e n h a n c e d b ysix lev e ls b e c a u se sh e k n e w th a t th e lau n d e re d m o n e yw a s in ten d e d to p ro m o te th e n a rc o tic s tr a d e , s ee U . S. S. G . § 2S1. 1( b) ( 1) ; and, ( 2) w hethers he mer i t ed a t w o l e v e l d e c r e a s e f

o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, s ee U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1. A ts ent enci ng, th e D istric t C o u rt a p p lied th e six lev e l en h a n c e m e n t o f § 2 S 1 .1 (b )(1 ), b u t d e c lin e d to appl y§ 3E 1. 1 t o decr eas e heroffe ns e l evel foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . A ft er re v iew in g th e f

a c to rs r e f

e rre d to in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), th e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d b o th E ver ado, w ho unl i ke Li l i an had be nefi t t ed fr om a thr ee l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , and Li l i an t o s eventym ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent . ForL i l i an, t hats ent ence4

w as t w entys even mont hs undert he l ow es tr ecomm ended gui del i nes s ent ence . II. L i l i an’ s pr i nci pal ar gum entr egar di ng t he s i x l evel enhanc ementforl aunder i ng n a rc o tics -re late d m o n e yu n d e r § 2 S 1 .1 (b )(1 ) is th a t th e lan g u a g e o f h e r p lea c o llo q u y , in w hi ch s he admi t t ed thatats om e poi nti n t i m e s he l earned “thatt he s our ce of t he funds w as fr om t he s al e of na r cot i cs , ” A pp. atA 23, w as i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tt he enhanc ement . She as s er t s t hat§ 2S1. 1( b) ( 1) r equi r es s uch know l edge a tt he t i m e the m o n e yw a s la u n d e re d . H o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt a p p lied th e e n h a n c e m e n t n o t o n ly beca us e Li l i an had “ s ai d y es att he pl ea a l l ocut i on t o know i ng [thatt he] curr encyw as fr om t he pr ocee ds of s om e form of i l l egal act i vi t y , ” butal s o beca us e of the “a t t endi ng ci r cumst ance s . . . . ” A pp. atA 48. T hos e ci r cumst ance s i ncl uded the l ar ge s um s of m oneyi nvol ved, E ver ado’ s admi s s i on “dur i ng hi s pos t - arr es ts t at ement ” thathe knew t hat t he moneyw as fr om drug s al es , L i l i an’ s pos s es s i on of the l edger , t he ce l l phone, and the p o st- itn o te, an d the g o v ern m en t’ s p laus ible asse rt ion that the f ac ts th at th e M u n o z’s apart m entw as s par s el yfurni s hed and the r entw as pai d fori n cas h ar e “i ndi cat i ve of l aunder i ng m oneyfr om nar cot i cs s al es . ” PSR at¶ 29. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on w a s n o t c le a r e rr o r. See U nited S tates v. C arr , 25 F. 3d 1194, 1210 ( 3d C i r . 1994) (re v iew in g d istric t co u rt’s th re e lev e l en h a n c e m e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 S 1 .1 (b )(1 ) “ o n ly fo r clear e rror”). W e tur n t o L i l i an’ s chal l enge t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the tw o poi ntM o reo v er, th e D istri ct C o u rtd isbe li ev ed L il ian’s 1 sta tem e n ts th a t sh e d id n o t k n o w th a t th e m o n e y w a s c o n n e c ted to drugs. 5 r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1 s t at es , “I f the def endant cl earl ydem on strat es acceptance of respon si bil i t yfor hi s offen se, decrease the o ffen se l evel by2 l evel s . ” The com m ent s t o t hatgui del i ne furt herexpl ai n t hat“a de fenda ntw ho fal s el ydeni es , orfr i vol ous l ycont es t s , r el evantconductt hatt he courtdet erm i nes t o be tru e h a s a c te d in a m a n n e r i n c o n s is te n t w ith a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility[ .]” U .S .S .G . § 3E 1. 1 cmt . n. 1( a) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatL i l i an’ s s t at ement s t o t he pr obat i on offi ce thats he ac compani ed herhus band butdi d notknow w hathe w as doi ng s how ed a lac k o f a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili tyin so m e o n e w h o h a d p led g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto l aunderm oney . I ndeed, hers t at ement s befor e the pr obat i on offi ce f l at l ycontr adi ct ed th o se m a d e d u rin g h e r p lea c o llo q u y , at w h ich L ili a n a n sw e re d “ y e s” w h e n a sk e d b o th “D i d y ou under s t and thatt he curr encyy ou r ece i ved w as t he pr ocee ds of s om e form of unl aw ful act i vi ty ?” and “D i d y ou under s t and thatt he purpos e of de l i ver i es of curr ency w as t o conce al and di s gui s e the natur e, l ocat i on, s our ce, ow ner s hi p and contr ol of the funds ?” A pp. atA 23. A l t hough L i l i an w as appar ent l yw i t houtcouns el att he t i m e s he s poke w i t h t he pr obat i on offi cer , s he di d notcl ai m t hats he mi s under s t ood t he ques t i ons pos ed, and, al t hough gi ven the oppor tuni t y , s he di d notat t empt t o cl ar i fyherans w er s dur i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Si ngh , 923 F. 2d 1039, 1041- 43 ( 3d C i r . 1991) 1(n o c lea r e rro r w h e n d istric t co u rt d e n ied a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili tyc re d it fo r c o m m e n ts m a d e d u rin g u n c o u n se led in ter v iew w ith p ro b a tio n a n d b e f o re d e f e n d a n t p lea d g u iltyto o ff en se). “T h e se n tenc ing jud g e is i n a u n iqu e p o sit ion to ev alua te a d ef en d an t’ s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , ” U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1 cmt . n. 5 and w e aga i n fi nd no cl earerr or in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n . U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 4 9 8 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 2 0 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Fi nal l y , L i l i an ca n onl yr ai s e hercl ai m fori neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el on c o llate ra l re v iew u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 a s “ [ t]h is is n o t a c a se [ w ]h e re th e re c o rd is s uffi ci entt o al l ow det erm i nat i on of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el [. ] ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O l f ano , 5 0 3 F . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion an d q u o tat ion o m itted). It rem ai ns un cert ai n w hycou nsel al l eged l yfai l ed to perform cert ai n d uti es, or w hethert ho se f a i l u r e s p r e

j u d i c e d L i l i a n i n a n y w a y. III . Fort he above s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .

6