IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RAMON OMAR ALVARADO,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:16-CR-789-4

Before KING, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramon Omar Alvarado was convicted of conspiracy to commit money 

laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and (a)(3)(B). On direct appeal, 

he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the Government 

failed to present evidence establishing that he believed that the money he was 

directed to launder was drug money. A reasonable jury, however, could infer 

that Alvarado knew the alleged source of the funds he was handling. Because

* 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

March 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40005 Document: 00515332421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2020
No. 19-40005

2

this court is required to accept all reasonable inferences that support the 

verdict, we AFFIRM Alvarado’s conviction.

BACKGROUND

Juan De La Garza and Martha Alicia Bentancourt Juarez,1 a husband 

and wife, agreed to launder money for I.M., a confidential informant posing as 

a drug trafficker. To carry out their scheme, the couple sought assistance from 

Juan Montelongo-Villareal and defendant-appellant Ramon Omar Alvarado. 

The Government indicted De La Garza, Bentancourt Juarez, MontelongoVillareal, and Alvarado with one count each of conspiracy to commit money 

laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and (a)(3)(B). Alvarado was tried 

alone, and over a five-day trial, the Government presented the following 

evidence.

I.M. introduced himself to De La Garza and Bentancourt Juarez in 

January 2015 as a trafficker in methamphetamines and cocaine who wanted 

to launder money. The couple agreed to help him for a ten percent fee. I.M.

received $100,000 in cash from federal agents, which he delivered to De La 

Garza and Bentancourt Juarez. They accepted it with the understanding that 

they would launder $90,000 by making it appear to be legitimate business 

payments deposited into a bank account held in the name of TQM Services, a 

fictitious entity created by the FBI.

Shortly thereafter, Bentancourt Juarez and De La Garza visited 

Juanito’s Pallets. Juanito’s Pallets was a business where trucks from Mexico 

could offload goods for pickup by trucks bound for destinations within the 

United States. Until 2007, the company was owned by Montelongo-Villareal, 

who then transferred ownership to his son Juan Antonio Montelongo but 

1 The parties offer various spellings of “Bentancourt.” We adopt the spelling used in 

the indictment.

 Case: 19-40005 Document: 00515332421 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2020
No. 19-40005

3

continued to work there as a manager. Alvarado was a friend of MontelongoVillareal, and although Alvarado was not an employee of Juanito’s Pallets, he 

was there almost every day. When Bentancourt Juarez and De La Garza 

visited Juanito’s Pallets in January 2015, Bentancourt Juarez remained in the 

car while De La Garza spoke to Montelongo-Villareal and Alvarado. 

Bentancourt Juarez did not overhear these conversations but testified that 

De La Garza later recounted having told Montelongo-Villareal that “he knew 

a person who wanted to invest some money, but that it was money that 

originated from the traffic in methamphetamines.” “[T]hen,” Bentancourt 

Juarez continued, “my husband told me that Mr. Montelongo told him to speak 

to Mr. Alvarado. And that whatever Mr. Alvarado decided to do, that he was 

in agreement with that.” Bentancourt Juarez further explained that at one 

point, Alvarado came over to greet her and she heard him ask De Le Garza 

“what percentage of the money the owner of the money that was going to be 

invested wanted.”

Over the course of the next month, Bentancourt Juarez delivered money 

from I.M. to Alvarado who, in return, gave her invoices and checks. The 

invoices listed supposed transactions between TQM Services and Juanito’s 

Pallets, and the checks were addressed to TQM Services from Juanito’s Pallets. 

One of these checks was returned for insufficient funds. Bentancourt Juarez 

called Alvarado to inform him of this and told him, “Mr. Omar, you know where 

this money comes from. I don’t want to have any problems with [I.M.], so that 

money needs to be there.” Despite this and other calls, as well as a demand 

letter, the money was not forthcoming, the bounced check was never made 

good, and Bentancourt Juarez was unable to deposit two other checks from 

Alvarado. This left her and De La Garza responsible to I.M. for a debt of almost 

$30,000.

 Case: 19-40005 Document: 00515332421 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2020
No. 19-40005

4

On April 21, 2016, I.M. told De La Garza that he wanted to “see how the 

30 came out”—referring to the $30,000 that was still owed. The next day, I.M.

and De La Garza met Alvarado and Montelongo-Villareal at Juanito’s Pallets. 

Alvarado offered an explanation to I.M. of how he had lost some of the money 

entrusted to him. I.M. remarked that the money was “dirty” and said he didn’t 

care if Omar Alvarado made use of it; he simply wanted it returned to him 

“clean.” According to I.M., Alvarado seemed unsurprised when the money was

described as “dirty.” After the meeting, Alvarado indicated that he wanted to 

work with I.M. directly. Alvarado was arrested several weeks later and 

charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Alvarado was tried before a jury. At the close of the Government’s case, 

Alvarado moved for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the 

motion, and the jury found Alvarado guilty as charged. The court then 

sentenced Alvarado to an 87-month term of imprisonment to be followed by 

three years of supervised release. Alvarado filed a timely notice of appeal, 

challenging again the sufficiency of the evidence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Where an appellant has preserved a sufficiency of the evidence 

challenge, as Alvarado did here, de novo review applies. United States v. 

McDowell, 498 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2007). “When reviewing the sufficiency 

of the evidence, a court must determine whether ‘any rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” 

United States v. Umawa Oke Imo, 739 F.3d 226, 235 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting

United States v. Moreno-Gonzalez, 662 F.3d 369, 372 (5th Cir. 2011)). 

“Evidence is to be viewed ‘in the light most favorable to the verdict.’” Id.

(quoting Moreno-Gonzalez, 662 F.3d at 372). “Moreover, courts are to ‘accept[ ] 

all credibility choices and reasonable inferences made by the trier of fact which 

 Case: 19-40005 Document: 00515332421 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/04/2020
No. 19-40005

5

tend to support the verdict.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting MorenoGonzalez, 662 F.3d at 372).

DISCUSSION

Section 1956(a)(3)(B)—one of the provisions under which Alvarado was 

charged—defines money laundering, in part, as intending “to conceal or 

disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of property believed 

to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(B)

(emphasis added). Drawing on this language, Alvarado premises his

sufficiency challenge on the proposition that the Government was required to 

prove that he believed the money he was asked to launder was drug money. 

The Government takes no issue with this proposition, and the jury instruction 

was consistent with it. We therefore need not explore this issue further.2

The Government maintains that the evidence presented at trial was 

sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Alvarado believed he was 

laundering drug money. We agree. Although no direct evidence was presented 

establishing that Alvarado believed that I.M. was a drug trafficker or that 

Alvarado believed the money he was asked to launder was drug money, such 

direct evidence is unnecessary. See United States v. Fuchs, 467 F.3d 889, 906

(5th Cir. 2006). Instead, “[t]he knowledge element of the money-laundering 

offense . . . [is] provable (as knowledge must almost always be proved) by 

circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 521, 

128 S. Ct. 2020, 2029 (2008). The jury, moreover, is permitted to make 

2 But cf. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) (requiring knowledge “that the property involved in a 

financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity” (emphasis 

added)); United States v. Garza, 42 F.3d 251, 253 (5th Cir. 1994) (“To support a conviction 

under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), the government must prove, inter alia, that the defendant 

knew that the source of the funds was illicit . . . .”); United States v. Rivas-Estrada, 761 F. 

App’x 318, 326 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Conspiracy to commit money laundering does not require 

that the defendant know exactly what ‘unlawful activity’ generated the proceeds.” (citing 

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1))).

 Case: 19-40005 Document: 00515332421 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/04/2020
No. 19-40005

6

reasonable inferences. And this court is required to accept all such inferences 

that tend to support the verdict. Umawa Oke Imo, 739 F.3d at 235.

With that in mind, we turn to the key pieces of testimony that undermine 

Alvarado’s sufficiency challenge. First, the jury was informed that De La 

Garza visited Montelongo-Villareal at Juanito’s Pallets and informed him that 

the money at issue originated from traffic in methamphetamines. The jury 

was also told that Alvarado was at Juanito’s Pallets when that meeting took 

place. Montelongo-Villareal, moreover, told De La Garza to speak with 

Alvarado about the money laundering scheme and that he (MontelongoVillareal) would do whatever Alvarado decided to do. That conversation

presumably happened since Alvarado approached De La Garza shortly 

thereafter and asked what percentage of the money I.M. wanted to keep. Next, 

the jury knew Alvarado was a good friend of Montelongo-Villareal and visited 

Juanito’s Pallets “[a]lmost every day,” despite not being a Juanito’s Pallets

employee. The jury was also told that after one of the checks Alvarado had 

given Bentancourt Juarez bounced, Betancourt Juarez called Alvarado and 

told him, “Mr. Omar, you know where this money comes from. I don’t want to 

have any problems with [I.M.], so that money needs to be there.” Finally, in a 

meeting with I.M., Alvarado was told that the money he was laundering was 

“dirty.” Alvarado did not act surprised when he heard this. Although this 

conversation took place after the relevant financial transactions, it sheds light 

on what Alvarado may have previously believed.

Based on the above evidence, particularly the initial conversations at 

Juanito’s Pallets, it seems reasonable for the jury to infer that, at some point 

during the laundering scheme, Alvarado was informed that the money he was 

“cleaning” was drug money. We thus reject Alvarado’s sufficiency challenge 

and AFFIRM his conviction.

 Case: 19-40005 Document: 00515332421 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/04/2020