IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30650

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS L. LINARES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:15-CR-71-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Carlos L. Linares of aiding and abetting the theft of 

government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2 (Count One); failure 

to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, in violation of 

31 U.S.C. §§ 5318(h) and 5322 (Count Two); and obstruction of a proceeding 

before a federal agency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Counts Three and 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30650 Document: 00514045252 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2017
No. 16-30650

2

Four). On appeal, Linares argues that the evidence was insufficient to support 

his convictions.

Linares did not renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close 

of all the evidence. Accordingly, Linares has waived any objection to the denial 

of his motion, and our review is “limited to determining whether there was a 

manifest miscarriage of justice.” See United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264, 

274 (5th Cir. 2001).

With respect to Count One, the only argument that Linares raises is that 

the Government failed to sufficiently prove that he acted knowingly or with 

fraudulent intent. To establish a violation of § 641, the Government was 

required to prove in relevant part that Linares stole or knowingly converted

money or property to his use or the use of another and that he did so knowing 

that the money or property was not his and with the intent to deprive the 

owner of the use or benefit of the money or property. See FIFTH CIRCUIT 

PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL), No. 2.27.

There was no dispute that from March 2012 through May 2013, Linares 

cashed more than 270 fraudulent and/or stolen United States Treasury checks, 

causing more than $1.6 million in loss. At trial, the Government introduced 

evidence that Linares accepted, cashed, and deposited hundreds of thousands 

of dollars’ worth of Treasury checks that no reasonable person would have 

accepted. As an example, Linares cashed a check where the payee’s name 

appeared as “%NA” with an address in Tampa, Florida. For more than 100 of 

the checks Linares cashed, he failed to verify and/or retain a copy of the 

customer’s identification. Of the checks he verified, he often accepted IDs that 

were obviously fraudulent. 

 Case: 16-30650 Document: 00514045252 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2017
No. 16-30650

3

The Government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that 

Linares knew he was cashing fraudulent checks.1 Linares has failed to show 

that his conviction on Count One was a manifest miscarriage of justice. 

Delgado, 256 F.3d at 274.

As for Count Two, to establish a violation of §§ 5318 and 5322, the 

Government was required to prove, in part, that Linares did not have a written 

anti-money laundering program in place at his business; that the anti-money 

laundering program, if any, failed to meet certain minimum requirements 

outlined in the regulations; and that he acted willfully. Because Linares

operated a money service business, he was required to comply with the Bank 

Secrecy Act (BSA) and have an effective anti-money laundering program in 

place at his business. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 5318(h); 5312(a)(2)(K).

The evidence at trial established that, from the date of the first Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) compliance exam in 2010 through at least early 2014, 

Linares was never in compliance with the BSA. The IRS examiner told Linares 

that he was subject to the BSA in 2010; Linares received written guidance from 

the IRS regarding his obligations under the BSA; and Linares certified in 2009 

and in 2012 that he was aware that he was subject to the BSA. The evidence 

provided a sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that Linares was fully aware 

of his obligations under the BSA and that he deliberately chose not to comply. 

Linares’s claim to the contrary is without merit. See Delgado, 256 F.3d at 274.

Count Three charged Linares with obstructing the 2010 IRS compliance 

examination. Count Four was based on the 2013 exam. To establish each 

offense, the Government was required to prove, in part, that Linares knew that 

 

1 The district court also provided the jury with this Circuit’s pattern instruction on

deliberate ignorance, and advised the jury, “you may find that the defendant had knowledge 

of a fact if you find that the defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what otherwise would 

have been obvious to him.” See FIFTH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL),

No. 1.37A.

 Case: 16-30650 Document: 00514045252 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2017
No. 16-30650

4

a proceeding was pending before a federal agency and that he corruptly 

endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper 

administration of the law under which the proceeding was being conducted.

As relevant to Count Three, Linares failed to provide the IRS examiner

with copies of any checks, but a later federal search led agents to recover 

numerous checks that would have been responsive to the examiner’s request. 

Additionally, Linares told the examiner (1) that he did not cash checks worth 

more than $5,000, and (2) that he did not allow customers to cash more than 

$5,000 in checks at a time. The evidence proved that both statements were 

false.

Finally, as to Count Four, Linares refused to provide a second IRS 

examiner with copies of any checks or identification cards. But the federal 

search revealed that Linares had in his possession over 90 different checks and 

more than 150 different identification cards that he had not provided to the 

IRS. Linares told the IRS examiner (1) that he did not allow customers to cash 

more than $10,000 worth of checks in a single day; (2) that he “very rarely” 

allowed customers to cash more than one check at a time; and (3) that the vast 

majority of his customers were “regulars” who “lived or worked in the 

community.” The evidence proved that all three representations were false.

Linares attempts to attack these convictions based on an alleged 

“language and comprehension barrier.” Both IRS examiners testified that they 

had no trouble communicating with Linares and that he never gave them any 

indication that he did not fully understand them. Indeed, Linares admitted

during questioning from his attorney that he frequently communicates with 

others in English and “understand[s] generally what’s being said.” Linares’s 

attempt to attack the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to Counts Three 

and Four based on an alleged language barrier is without merit.

 Case: 16-30650 Document: 00514045252 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/22/2017
No. 16-30650

5

Based on the evidence presented, a reasonable jury was entitled to find 

that Linares intentionally lied to the IRS examiners and refused to provide 

them with relevant documents that they had requested in the course of their 

compliance examinations. Linares had failed to show that his convictions 

amount to “a manifest miscarriage of justice.” See Delgado, 256 F.3d at 274.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-30650 Document: 00514045252 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/22/2017