1 We collectively refer to all Defendants-Appellants as the “Appellants.” We collectively

refer to Lopez, Galaviz, and Magana only as the “Money Laundering” or “ML Appellants.”

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NORBERTO ALANIZ; JOSEFINA GALAVIZ; MAYRA LOPEZ; YESICA

MAGANA; LEANDRO SALAS-GALAVIZ, also known as Daniel Obregon, also

known as Lic,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and HIGGINSON, Circuit

Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge:

Defendants-Appellants, Salas-Galaviz (“Salas”), Alaniz, Lopez, Galaviz,

and Magana appeal their convictions and sentences for drug trafficking, money

laundering, and conspiracy thereof.1 For the reasons provided herein, we wholly

AFFIRM Alaniz’s convictions and sentences. Due to a Sentencing Guidelines

error conceded by the government, we VACATE the sentences of Salas and the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 29, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

2 The other transporters either pled guilty and cooperated, or were subject to trial in

other federal district courts. They are not party to this appeal.

2

ML Appellants as to Count 10 only, and REMAND for re-sentencing. We

otherwise AFFIRM the convictions and sentences in full.

BACKGROUND

A. Salas

Salas is an illegal immigrantfrom Mexico who cannot speak or understand

English. During most of the period at issue in this case, Salas resided in Laredo,

Texas, where he used an “assumed Social Security number” and the criminal

alias “Daniel Obregon.” Salas was apprehended in January 2010 as part of the

joint DEA/IRS “Operation Reload,” which targeted U.S. appendages of the

Mexican drug cartels, Los Zetas and the Gulf Cartel.

Salas was convicted of running a large-scale cocaine and marijuana

trafficking operation out of Laredo—an epicenter of U.S.-Mexico drug

trafficking—while ostensibly working as a Spanish-language car salesman.

Before moving to Laredo and displaying sudden, large amounts of wealth, Salas

worked behind the counter at a Krispy Kreme Doughnuts in Dallas. The district

court found that Salas moved from Dallas to Laredo, at the behest of Los Zetas

and the Gulf Cartel, where he organized and led a drug trafficking operation

from the Laredo border to various points throughout the United States.

B. Alaniz

Alaniz, who is not related to Salas, was one of more than two-dozen

individuals who worked for Salas as a drug transporter.2 He was apprehended

in Texas on July 18, 2006 with a tractor-trailer full of drugs. Alaniz previously

was convicted of similar drug trafficking offenses to those charged in this case.

C. The ML Appellants

Lopez is Salas’s wife, Galaviz is Salas’s mother, and Magana is Salas’s

younger sister. The three laundered drug trafficking proceeds for Salas.
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

3 Both “Ester Ramirez” and “Roberto Garcia” were aliases under which the district

court allowed the two informants to testify. In their briefs, the parties refer to Ramirez as

“Confidential Source” or “CS1” and Garcia as “CS2.” We do the same.

4 For ease of reference, we have included charts documenting the counts charged and

the convictions and sentences imposed in an Appendix at the end of this opinion.

3

Lopez lived with Salas in Laredo, while Galaviz lived with Magana in the

vicinity of Dallas. Magana claimed Galaviz as a federal tax dependant.

D. The Money Laundering Conspiracy

To launder his drug trafficking proceeds, Salas ran a sham construction

company called “LC Contractors.” Lopez ran a sham import-export business

called “Via Italia Devine.” Galaviz bought and sold real estate, and Magana

bought and sold motor vehicles.

In all, Salas accrued $1,913,937 in drug trafficking proceeds between 2002

and 2009, which he and the ML Appellants laundered through 38 bank accounts.

Lopez, Galaviz, and Magana were apprehended with Salas in January 2010.

E. Procedural History

On June 8, 2010, Appellants were charged by a sixteen-count indictment.

Appellants proceeded to a joint jury trial, where the prosecutor, in part, relied

on the testimony of confidential informants, Ester Ramirez and Roberto Garcia.3

Collectively, Appellants were convicted on thirteen of the sixteen counts.

Salas was sentenced to life imprisonment, Alaniz to 30 years imprisonment, and

each of the ML Appellants to 11 years, 3 months imprisonment.4In addition to

the prison terms, the district court imposed substantial fines and forfeitures.

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence Challenges

The ML Appellants all raise sufficiency of the evidence challenges on

appeal, with respect to both their conspiracy and substantive money laundering

convictions. All three were convicted of conspiracy under Count 10 of the
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

5 All three ML Appellants properly preserved their challenges for appeal.

4

indictment. Lopez was convicted of substantive money laundering under Count

11, Galaviz under Counts 13 and 14, and Magana under Count 12.

Upon review, we conclude the evidence was plentiful that all three

Appellants (i) experienced sudden wealth in the form of property valued at more

than $10,000; (ii) knew the property came from Salas’s unlawful drug

trafficking; and (iii) implicitly agreed to launder the property in order to

facilitate Salas’s trafficking.

A. Standard of Review

“This court reviews preserved challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence

de novo.” United States v. Grant, 683 F.3d 639, 642 (5th Cir. 2012) (citation

omitted).5“When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all evidence,

whether circumstantial or direct, in the light most favorable to the government,

with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices to be made in support of

the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 375 (5th Cir. 2009) (per

curiam) (citation omitted).

“A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.”

United States v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 254 (5th Cir. 1991). “It is not necessary

that the evidence exclude every rational hypothesis of innocence or be wholly

inconsistent with every conclusion except guilt, provided a reasonable trier of

fact could find the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United

States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 256 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). 

In all, this Court’s “inquiry is limited to whether the jury’s verdict was

reasonable, not whether we believe it to be correct.” United States v. MorenoGonzalez, 662 F.3d 369, 372 (5th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

5

marks omitted). This inquiry “is highly deferential to the verdict.” United

States v. Harris, 293 F.3d 863, 869 (5th Cir. 2002).

“Circumstantial evidence may establish the existence of a conspiracy, as

well as an individual’s voluntary participation in it, and circumstances

altogether inconclusive, if separately considered, may, by their number and joint

operation . . . be sufficient to constitute conclusive proof.” United States v.

Fernandez, 559 F.3d 303, 315 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted) (alterations in original).

B. Applicable Law

1. Conspiracy Charges

Count 10 charged the three ML Appellants, as well as Salas, with: (i) the

concealment of drug trafficking proceeds; (ii) in order to avoid a reporting

requirement; (iii) by moving funds outside the United States and engaging in

monetary transactions of a value greater than $10,000 through a financial

institution. This amounted to a charge for conspiracy to commit money

laundering in violation, inter alia, of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).

The elements of a conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), are: (i) “that there was an agreement between two or more

persons to commit money laundering”; and (ii) “that the defendant joined the

agreement knowing its purpose and with the intent to further the illegal

purpose.” United States v. Fuchs, 467 F.3d 889, 906 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations

omitted). “The government need not prove an overt act in furtherance of the

conspiracy.” Id. (citing Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 219 (2005)).

“It is settled law that conspiring to commit a crime is an offense wholly

separate from the crime which is the object of the conspiracy.” United States v.

Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “Thus, we have

consistently held that a conspiracy charge need not include the elements of the

substantive offense the defendant may have conspired to commit.” Id. (citations
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

6 We emphasize that the knowledge inquiry looks only to whether the property was

derived from an “unlawful activity.” Accordingly, the mens rea element of the offense does not

extend to whether the defendant knowingly laundered the funds, only whether the defendant

knew the funds were illicit and engaged in a “financial transaction” with them regardless.

6

omitted). “Evidence that a defendant’s cash outflow in a financial transaction

exceeds [her] legitimate income is sufficient to show that the transaction

involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, even ifthe defendant claims

income from other sources.” United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1191

(5th Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2. Substantive Money Laundering Charges

Count 11 charged Lopez with knowingly laundering $15,000 in unlawfully

derived property from a Wells Fargo account on April 17, 2007. Count 13

charged Galaviz with knowingly laundering $30,000 in unlawfully derived

property, by means of a Laredo National Bank cashier’s check, on or about

January 23, 2008. Count 14 charged Galaviz with knowingly laundering

$48,304.31 in unlawfully derived property, by means of a check drawn from

BBVA Compass Account No. 1782, on or about April 17, 2008. Count 12 charged

Magana with knowingly laundering $15,000 in unlawfully derived property, on

or about March 29, 2007, by making a payment on Salas’s house in Laredo using

a check drawn on Chase Account No. 7697. These amounted to charges for

money laundering in violation, inter alia, of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a).

The elements of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a), are:

(i) “property valued at more than $10,000 that was derived from a specified

unlawful activity”; (ii) “the defendant’s engagement in a financial transaction

with the property”; and (iii) “the defendant’s knowledge that the property was

derived from unlawful activity.” Fuchs, 467 F.3d at 907 (citations omitted).6

“Unlawfully” or “criminally derived property” is “property constituting, or

derived from, proceeds obtained from a criminal offense,” such as drug

trafficking. See 18 U.S.C. § 1957(f)(2). A “financial” or “monetary transaction”
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

7

is “the deposit, withdrawal, transfer, or exchange, in or affecting interstate or

foreign commerce, of funds or a monetary instrument . . . by, through, or to a

financial institution,” but “does not include any transaction necessary to

preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the [S]ixth

[A]mendment to the Constitution.” Id. § 1957(f)(1).

C. Analysis

1. Lopez

a. Evidence of Sudden Wealth

Lopez is Salas’s wife. From 2005 through 2009, Salas reported income of

approximately $30,000 in total. However, his bank accounts showed cash

deposits and wire transfers of approximately $761,000. Between 2002 and 2008,

Lopez and Salas wentfrom living in a one-bedroom rental apartmentto building

a house valued at approximately $500,000. During that period, they reported

a combined total income of less than $50,000.

Lopez herself was an occasional seller of Mary Kay and Avon products.

Prior to 2008, she had earned $12,000 in total from Mary Kay sales and $5000

in total from Avon sales. Lopez otherwise had no meaningful income from any

source between 2003 and 2009. Nevertheless, her bank accounts showed cash

deposits and wire transfers totaling $361,934 during that period.

Finally, in 2008, Via Italia—Lopez’s ostensible import-export

business—reported a loss of approximately $48,000. During that same year, it

received cash deposits and wire transfers of approximately $61,800.

Together, this evidence demonstrates that Lopez experienced sudden

wealth in the form of property valued at more than $10,000.

b. Evidence of Knowledge of Drug Trafficking

Between 2002 and 2009, the record reflects instances where Lopez knew

that Salas was using the alias “Daniel Obregon.” Moreover, on May 24, 2007,

Lopez expressly told CS1 that she was going to Dallas, on behalf of Salas, to
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

8

retrieve drug proceeds and return them to Laredo. Salas then added, in Lopez’s

presence, that Alaniz had transported drugs for him before his apprehension.

Finally, on March 28, 2008, Lopez confided to CS1 that LC Contractors (Salas’s

construction company) was not in business “to make money.” If not in business

“to make money,” it stands to reason LC Contractors actually was in business

to front for Salas’s drug trafficking.

In light of this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that Lopez knew

that her sudden wealth came or derived from Salas’s drug trafficking, an

unlawful activity.

c. Evidence of an Implicit Agreement to Launder

Funds Derived from Salas’s Trafficking

Between May 2008 and June 2008, Lopez withdrew $35,000 from an

account with IBC Bank in the name of Via Italia. She used the $35,000 to

purchase a certificate of deposit (“CD”), and then used the CD as collateral for

a loan of approximately the same amount. This transaction had no conceivable

purpose other than the intentional obscurement of the $35,000’s initial source.

In light of Lopez’s knowledge that she had obtained property in excess of

$10,000, and that the property was derived from Salas’s unlawful drug

trafficking, Lopez’s intentional obscurement of the $35,000 could permit a

reasonable jury to infer that Lopez implicitly agreed to launder the source of the

property for Salas in order to facilitate his drug trafficking.

d. Conclusion

Based on the above evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude

that Lopez conspired to launder Salas’s drug trafficking proceeds in violation,

inter alia, of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).

On April 17, 2007, Lopez made a $15,000 payment to Chrysler Financial,

from Wells Fargo Bank Account No. 3431, towards a Dodge Durango truck used

by Salas. For the reasons stated above, Lopez knew that the $15,000 was drug

trafficking proceeds. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

7 All three ML Appellants waived any challenges to whether the transactions

underlying their convictions were “financial transactions.”

9

Lopez laundered Salas’s drug trafficking proceeds in violation, inter alia, of 18

U.S.C. § 1957(a).7

2. Galaviz

a. Evidence of Sudden Wealth

Galaviz is Salas’s mother. From 2002 through 2008, Galaviz reported less

than $18,000 in income, but received $509,665 in wire transfers and cash

deposits into the seven different bank accounts that she controlled.

This evidence demonstrates that Galaviz experienced sudden wealth in the

form of property valued at more than $10,000.

b. Evidence of Knowledge of Drug Trafficking

Galaviz received multiple wire transfers from individuals residing in

Mexico, who the trial record implies are drug traffickers. Notably, BBVA

Compass Bank Account No. 1782 received $245,995 in international wire

transfers from three such individuals: Hilario Martinez-Garcia, Jesus GarzaRodriguez, and Hector Vicente Becerra. $32,000 of those transferred funds

arrived from Mexico shortly after Galaviz opened the account. The account also

received $38,000 in cash deposits. Similarly, IBC Account No. 0654 received two

international wire transfers, totaling $27,970, from Alejandro Lara-Davila,

another individual in Mexico who the trial record implies is a trafficker.

On the day that Galaviz opened it, Wells Fargo Account No. 1432 received

a $50,000 wire transfer from Lara-Davila. Galaviz used the $50,000 to buy a CD

on April 25, 2007. When the CD matured, Galaviz wired $52,500 from the

account to Salas. The account also received $43,500 in cash deposits.

In light of this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that Galaviz knew

that her sudden wealth came or derived from Salas’s drug trafficking, an

unlawful activity.
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

10

c. Evidence of an Implicit Agreement to Launder

Funds Derived from Salas’s Trafficking

In April 2007, Galaviz wired $52,130.51 to Magana who, in turn, wired

$58,692 back to Galaviz in July 2008. On January 17, 2008, Galaviz wired

$33,000 to herself, from a Wells Fargo account she controlled to BBVA Compass

Account No. 1782. Later that year, on June 25, 2008, Galaviz opened BBVA

Compass Account No. 6826 with a $136,147.60 transfer from Account No. 1782.

These transfers served no apparent purpose other than the intentional

obscurement of the initial sources of the transferred funds.

In light of Galaviz’s knowledge that she had obtained property in excess

of $10,000, and that the property was derived from Salas’s drug trafficking,

Galaviz’s intentional obscurement of the above-described funds could permit a

reasonable jury to infer that Galaviz implicitly agreed to launder the source of

the property for Salas.

d. Conclusion

Based on the above evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude

that Galaviz conspired to launder Salas’s drug trafficking proceeds in violation,

inter alia, of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).

e. Challenge to Count 14

On January 17, 2008, Galaviz wired $33,000 from Wells Fargo Account No.

1432 to BBVA Compass Account No. 1782. On or about January 23, 2008,

Galaviz used those funds to purchase a $30,000 cashier’s check from Laredo

National Bank. Galaviz used the cashier’s check to make the down payment on

a house she purchased from Salas in Laredo’s Patron Loop neighborhood. As

part of the transaction, Galaviz financed $120,000, and falsely referred to Salas

as “Daniel Obregon” in the attendant documentation. Through December 2009,

Galaviz made payments on the house approximating $29,000 from two BBVA

Compass accounts. At that time, after less than two years had passed, Galaviz

sold the house for a $140,071 profit. For the reasons stated above, Galaviz knew
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

11

that the $30,000 cashier’s check was funded with drug trafficking proceeds.

Accordingly, with respect to Count 13, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude

that Galaviz laundered Salas’s trafficking proceeds in violation, inter alia, of 18

U.S.C. § 1957(a).

On April 16, 2008, Galaviz drew a check for $48,304.31 on BBVA Compass

Account No. 1782. The following day, Galaviz used the funds to purchase a lot

with Salas in Laredo’s Deer Ridge neighborhood. The settlement sheet and

other closing documents listed Galaviz as the “buyer,” even though Salas

contributed more than two-thirds of the purchase funds. For the reasons stated

above, Galaviz knew that the $48,304.31 check drew on drug trafficking

proceeds. Accordingly, with respect to Count 14, it was reasonable for the jury

to conclude that Galaviz laundered Salas’s trafficking proceeds in violation, inter

alia, of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a).

3. Magana

a. Evidence of Sudden Wealth

IRS Agent Juan Rodriguez testified that, from 2006 through 2008, Magana

reported income of approximately $140,000 in total from work as a hair dresser

at a salon. She did not file a tax return in 2009. Yet, during that period,

Magana received approximately $220,000 in wire transfers and cash deposits

into the eleven different bank accounts that she controlled.

This evidence demonstrates that Magana experienced sudden wealth in

the form of property valued at more than $10,000.

b. Evidence of Knowledge of Drug Trafficking

From 2002 to 2009,the record reflects instances where Magana knew that

Salas—her brother—was using the alias “Daniel Obregon.” Moreover, on April

3, 2007, Galaviz wired $52,130 into Chase Bank Account No. 7697, which

Magana controlled. Magana used those funds to purchase a $50,000 CD on April

17, 2007. Subsequently, Magana increased the CD purchase to $80,000, using
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

8 To be clear, evidence that simply demonstrates a defendant made purchases

above—even grossly above—her means, is not sufficient alone to establish money laundering

or conspiracy to commit money laundering. Here, the multiple and unexplained wire transfers,

deposits, andcontrivances (e.g., purchasing the CD) establishedMagana’sknowledge of sudden

wealth from Salas’s trafficking. Only within this context was Magana’s otherwise inexplicable

purchase of numerous expensive vehicles for Salas sufficient to establish her implicit

agreement to launder his proceeds in order to facilitate his trafficking.

12

some of the approximately $74,600 in cash that had been deposited into the

account between July 2006 and April 2007. Upon the CD’s maturation, Magana

wired $25,000 from the account to Becerra in Mexico and another $58,692 back

to Galaviz.

Together,this evidence—especially the $25,000 transfer to Becerra, a drug

trafficker—could permit a reasonable jury to infer that Magana knew her

sudden wealth came or derived from Salas’s drug trafficking, an unlawful

activity.

c. Evidence of an Implicit Agreement to Launder

Funds Derived from Salas’s Trafficking

In 2007 alone, Magana purchased a new Ford F150 pickup truck for

$41,694, a new Jeep Commander SUV for $38,500, and a new Mercedes-Benz

SUV for $73,641.95. With respect to each purchase, someone other than Magana

made most of the payments and someone other than Magana ultimately drove

the vehicle (generally Salas). There was no apparent purpose to Magana making

the purchases other than the intentional obscurement of the true purchaser.

In light of Magana’s knowledge that she had obtained property in excess

of $10,000, and that the property was derived from Salas’s unlawful drug

trafficking, Magana’s intentional use of the property to act as a straw purchaser

of the vehicles could permit a reasonable jury to infer that Magana implicitly

agreed to launder the source of the property in order to facilitate Salas’s

trafficking.8

d. Conclusion
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

13

Based on the above evidence, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude

that Magana conspired to launder Salas’s drug trafficking proceeds in violation,

inter alia, of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).

On or about March 29, 2007, Magana drew a $15,000 check on Chase

Account No. 7969 in order to make a payment on Salas’s house in Laredo. For

the reasons stated above, Magana knew the check was funded with Salas’s drug

trafficking proceeds. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that

Magana laundered those proceeds in violation, inter alia, of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a).

II. Identification of Magana at Trial

Magana contends that the prosecution did not sufficiently identify her at

trial because no witness for the prosecution personally identified her to the jury.

This contention, however, is directly at odds with our longstanding precedent.

Identity may be established “by inference and circumstantial evidence.” United

States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1110 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted). In other words, a witness need not “actually ‘point

out’ the defendant in the courtroom.” Id.

Here, the prosecution called DEA Agent Royce Clayborne at trial, who

testified that Magana’s driver’s license bore a home address matching the home

address listed on Magana’s 2007 and 2008 tax returns. The license was

introduced into evidence, which allowed the jury to compare the picture on it

with Magana. Under Seals, this was sufficient to establish Magana’s identity.

III. Challenges to the Admission or Exclusion of Evidence

A. Standard of Review

“Review of a trial court’s evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion,

subject to harmless error review.” United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692

(5th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “A trial court abuses its discretion when its

ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

14

assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Ragsdale, 426 F.3d 765, 774 (5th

Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

A “trial court is afforded wide discretion in assessing the relevance and

prejudicial effect of evidence.” United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473, 494 (5th Cir.

2010) (citation omitted). Therefore it has the power to exclude, inter alia,

witness “testimony that would be cumulative and marginally relevant.” See

United States v. Wallace, 32 F.3d 921, 929 (5th Cir. 1994).

“Alleged violations of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment

during cross-examination are reviewed de novo, applying a harmless error

standard.” United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 491 (5th Cir. 2011). 

B. Limitations on Magana’s Introduction of Character Evidence

Magana submits that the district court abused its discretion when it

limited her introduction of character evidence on the question of whether she is

naive and gullible, or unduly influenced by her brother (Salas).

1. Applicable Law

“Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to

prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the

character or trait.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1). However, in a criminal case, “a

defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the

evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it.” Id.

404(a)(2)(A). When such “evidence of a person’s character or character trait is

admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by

testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character

witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the

person’s conduct.” Id. 405(a).

2. Analysis

Magana listed a friend and co-worker from the hair salon, Kim Montee, as

a character witness. Montee would have testified that Magana was naive and
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

15

gullible, or unduly influenced by Salas, and therefore did not know that Salas

was a drug trafficker. The district court rejected the proffered testimony,

explaining: “[T]he fact that [Magana] is or is not naive will not establish

whether or not she has knowledge.” The court added that Magana “could be

naive and still have done it willfully and knowingly. . . .” On appeal, Magana

argues that Montee’s testimony was relevant under Rules 404(a)(2)(A) and

405(A). She submits that Montee’s testimony would have helped to establish a

character trait of naivete which, Magana posits, would have undermined the

jury’s determination that she knew Salas was a drug trafficker. Thus, Magana

contends the district court abused its discretion by not allowing the testimony.

We note at the outset that this argument fails on appeal in light of our

broad deference to district court evidentiary determinations. See Seale, 600F.3d

at 494; Wallace; 32 F.3d at 929. That said, Magana presented a naivete defense

at closing argument. It failed to persuade the jury, presumably because of the

overwhelming evidence of Magana’s guilt. The incremental testimony of

Montee—Magana’s conceded friend—would not have changed that outcome (at

least not for legally cognizable reasons). The district court did not abuse its

discretion when it limited Magana’s introduction of Montee’s testimony on the

question of whether Magana is naive and gullible, or unduly influenced by Salas.

C. Alaniz’s Crawford Challenge

Alaniz contends thatthe district court abused its discretion when it denied

his requestfor Crawford jury instructions, and admitted a recorded conversation

between Salas and a confidential informantthat criminally implicated him. See

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

1. Applicable Law

“Where nontestimonial hearsay is atissue, it is wholly consistent with the

Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay

law . . . . Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

16

demands whatthe common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity

for cross-examination.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68. “Statements made between

co-conspirators in furtherance of a conspiracy are not testimonial.” United

States v. King, 541 F.3d 1143, 1145-46 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

2. Analysis

Alaniz argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting a

recorded conversation between Salas and a confidential informant that

criminally implicated Alaniz because the court had denied Alaniz’s request for

accompanying Crawfordjury instructions. Alaniz contends that the confidential

informant on the tape was not CS1 or CS2, but a third confidential informant

who did not testify. He also contends that admission of the tape without an

accompanying instruction as to the parameters of Crawford and its progeny

violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because neither

Salas nor the purported third informant testified at trial.

The government responds that it was CS2 on the tape, that he did testify

at trial, and that he was subjected to cross-examination. The government also

argues that, regardless, the contents of the recordings were non-testimonial

statements between co-conspirators in furtherance of their conspiracy and,

therefore, fell outside the ambit of the Confrontation Clause’s protections.

a. Whether the Confrontation Clause Extends to the

Recorded Conversation.

“A defendant is presumed to continue in a conspiracy unless he makes a

substantial affirmative showing of withdrawal, abandonment, or defeat of the

conspiratorial purpose.” United States v. Torres, 114 F.3d 520, 525 (5th Cir.

1997). “The defendant has the burden of proving affirmative acts that are

inconsistent with the conspiracy and are communicated in a manner reasonably

calculated to reach his coconspirators.” Id. (citation omitted).
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

17

Here, unlike the three ML Appellants, Alaniz has not challenged the

sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conspiracy conviction. Therefore, he

is bound by that conviction on appeal. Furthermore, in his brief, he provides no

evidence that he had withdrawn from the conspiracy at the time of the recorded

conversation. Accordingly, for purposes of our review, Alaniz was a coconspirator with Salas and the confidential informant (who was pretending to

conspire) with respect to any recorded statements pertaining to the conspiracy.

“Statements made between co-conspirators in furtherance of a conspiracy

are not testimonial.” King, 541 F.3d at 1145-46 (citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at

56). From the material discussed on the recordings and Officer Colon’s

identification of the speakers, the district court reasonably concluded that the

statements were made between Salas and a co-conspirator in furtherance of the

conspiracy. While the recorded conversation here was not between Salas and

Alaniz, or between Alaniz and the informant, allthree individuals were common

to the conspiracy being discussed. Thus, the Confrontation Clause did not

extend to the recorded statements. There was no need for a curative Crawford

jury instruction, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting

the statements without one.

D. Challenges to the Testimony of CS1 and CS2

Salas, Alaniz, and Lopez submit that the district court abused its

discretion when it imposed limitations on defense counsel’s cross-examinations

of CS1 (Ramirez) and CS2 (Garcia), and allowed the two informants to testify

under aliases without disclosing their dates of birth or social security numbers.

1. Additional Facts

Prior to jury selection, the government shared the “true names” of CS1 and

CS2 with defense counsel, as well as other background information including

criminal histories, plea agreements, confidential informant agreements,

payment schedules, and prior testimonies. Defense counsel then requested CS1
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

18

and CS2’s dates of birth and social security numbers, ostensibly to facilitate

further background investigation for purposes of cross-examination. The district

court denied that request. On July 11, 2011, the district court granted the

government’s requests that CS1 and CS2 be allowed to testify under aliases at

trial, and that defense counsel be prohibited from referring to them by their

actual names. The two informants proceeded to testify under aliases and were

subjected to cross-examination, albeit with the following limitations.

a. CS1

At the time of trial, CS1’s husband was in jail on unrelated drug

trafficking charges. During cross examination, defense counsel asked CS1 how

many years her husband was involved in the drug trade and, in a follow-up

question, how many years she was aware of it. The prosecution objected to both

questions, and the court sustained both objections on the ground that they were

improper lines of impeachment. The court noted that defense counsel remained

“free to bring up bias or prejudice.”

b. CS2

CS2 admitted at trial that, like Salas, he previously had worked with the

Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. CS2 acknowledged his prior involvement with

cocaine and marijuana trafficking, and other violent crimes including murder.

During cross-examination, defense counsel asked CS2 whether he had reported

his past income from the Gulf Cartel to the IRS. The district court rejected the

question as irrelevant.

2. Applicable Law

a. The “Informant Privilege” and the “Roviaro

Limitation” on That Privilege

The “informant privilege” is a privilege held by the government “to

withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of

violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of that law.” Roviaro v.

United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957) (citations omitted). “The purpose of the
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

19

privilege is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law

enforcement. The privilege recognizes the obligation of citizens to communicate

their knowledge ofthe commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials and, by

preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation.” Id.

In Roviaro, the confidential informant at issue “was not produced,

identified, or otherwise made available” and, thus, did not testify at trial. Id. at

55. However, other witnesses for the prosecution testified concerning the

informant’s role in the investigation. Id. During cross-examination of those

witnesses, the district court rejected defense counsel’s attempts to learn the

informant’s identity. Id. The Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s ultimate

conviction, explaining: “Where the disclosure of an [informant’s] identity, or of

the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an

accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause,the privilege must give

way.” Id. at 60-61 (citations omitted). This “limitation on the applicability of the

privilege arises from the fundamental requirements of fairness.” Id. at 60.

b. “Roviaro Balancing” to Determine Whether the

Informant Privilege Must Give Way to Disclosure

“[N]o fixed rule with respectto disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one

that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information

against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62.

“Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous [depends] on the

particular circumstances of each case . . . .” Id. The non-exhaustive list of

factors taken into consideration includes (i) “the crime charged”; (ii) “the possible

defenses”; and (iii) “the possible significance of the [informant’s] testimony.” Id.

Professors Mueller and Kirkpatrick have advocated that the optimum forum for

this balancing of the public interest is an in camera hearing before the trial

judge. See 2 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence

§ 5.63 (3d ed. 2007).
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

20

c. Smith and the Use of Confidential Informants As

Trial Witnesses

In Smith v. Illinois, the Supreme Court expressly distinguished Roviaro,

and its attendant balancing, as applicable only where the informant did not

testify under alias attrial (or did not testify at all). See 390 U.S. 129, 133 (1968).

The Court explained that a government witness’s “name and address open

countless avenues of in-court examination and out-of-court investigation. To

forbid this most rudimentary inquiry atthe threshold is effectively to emasculate

the right of cross-examination itself.” Id. at 131. Smith, however, did not

mandate a per se rule requiring disclosure in open court of any government

witness’s name and address. Research reveals two cases, unaddressed by the

parties, in which courts addressed situations, like this one, in which government

witnesses whose true names were provided to the defense were permitted to

testify at trial under pseudonyms. See United States v. Celis, 608 F.3d 818 (D.C.

Cir. 2010); United States v. Maso, No. 07-10858, 2007 WL 3121986 (11th Cir.

2007) (per curiam) (unpublished). Those courts concluded that such testimony

did not violate the Confrontation Clause, under the balancing framework set

forth in Alford, Smith, and Roviaro, because the witnesses had a reasonable fear

for their safety, and the non-disclosure of their true identities did not unduly

hamper the defendants’ ability to prepare their defenses. Celis, 608 F.3d at

832–33; Maso, 2007 WL 3121986, at *4.

3. Analysis

a. CS1 and CS2’s Testimony Under Aliases

Here, CS1 and CS2 testified at trial and were subjected to crossexamination. While they testified under aliases, defense counsel were provided

with their “true names” and significant background information. The only

restrictions were that defense counsel could not use the informants’ actual
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

21

names in open court, and did not have access to the informants’ dates of birth

and social security numbers.

Balancing the public interestin protecting the flow of information against

the defendants’ confrontation rights, we conclude that the limited use of

pseudonyms did not violate the Confrontation Clause in this case. Defense

counsel were provided with the true names of the witnesses, information about

their backgrounds, their criminal records, the amount of compensation they

received for their DEA cooperation, and trial testimony they gave in previous

cases. And the witnesses were not strangers; Salas had known them for years.

The only information not disclosed to defense counsel was the witnesses’ dates

of birth and social security numbers. We fail to see how the non-disclosure of

such information, in light of the information provided, “frustrated meaningful

investigation into their respective backgrounds.” The defendants do not identify

what additional background information they sought to uncover. Nor do they

provide apposite authority supporting their position that the non-disclosure of

a witness’s date of birth and social security number violates the Confrontation

Clause; indeed, the only authority they cite is a case in which the true name of

a pseudonymous government witness was not disclosed to the defense, United

States v. Fuentes, 988 F. Supp. 861 (E.D. Pa. 1997), a different situation than the

one presented here. In fact, the situation here is strikingly similar to the

situations in Celis and Maso: in all three cases, the pseudonymous witnesses

were informants for the DEA who feared reprisal from drug trafficking

organizations. 

The principal difference is that the government here did not offer specific

evidence that the witnesses had a legitimate fear of reprisal and the court did

not make any findings on this issue. But the defendants did not raise a Roviaro

objection to the district court, and we are aware of no case holding that a district

court has the obligation to consider the Confrontation Clause implications of
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

22

pseudonymous testimony sua sponte. Because the defendants raised a discovery

objection, but not a confrontation objection,to the district court’s ruling allowing

the confidential informants to testify under aliases, our review is for plain error.

Under the circumstances, we perceive no plain error.

b. Limitations on Defense Counsel’s CrossExaminations of CS1 and CS2

With respectto its limitations on defense counsel’s ability (i)to re-question

CS1 about her possible involvement in her husband’s drug trafficking; and (ii)

to question CS2 about his tax reporting practices for past drug trafficking

income,the district court did not abuse its discretion. “[T]rial judges retain wide

latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable

limits on . . . cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things,

harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or

interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” Van Arsdall, 475

U.S. at 679. Here, the duplicative question to CS1 was “repetitive” at a

minimum. Moreover, the question to CS2 was, at best,“marginally relevant.”

“The relevant inquiry is whether the jury had sufficient information to

appraise the bias and motives of the witness.” Tansley, 986 F.2d at 886 (citation

omitted). Here, cross-examination provided the jury with ample insight into CS1

and CS2’s respective associations and criminal pasts, and possibly self-interested

motivations for cooperating with the government. The district court, which

reminded defense counsel it remained “free to bring up bias or prejudice,” did not

abuse its discretion by imposing its limitations on cross-examination.

IV. Challenges to Jury Instructions

A. Standard of Review

“When a challenge to jury instructions is properly preserved for appeal, we

review the challenged instructions for abuse of discretion.” United States v.

Newell, 315 F.3d 510, 528 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). “In deciding whether the evidence reasonably supports the jury
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

9 All Appellants raising challenges to jury instructions properly preserved their

challenges by objecting contemporaneously.

23

charge, the court reviews the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may

be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the government.” Id. at 529

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).9

B. Challenges to the District Court’s “Deliberate Ignorance”

Instruction

Salas, Lopez, and Galaviz contend the district court abused its discretion

when it gave this Circuit’s pattern jury instruction concerning “deliberate

ignorance” as to the money laundering counts (Counts 10 through 15).

1. Additional Standard of Review

“Appellate review of a deliberate ignorance instruction is necessarily a

fact-intensive endeavor. To determine the validity of the instruction, this Court

must carefully examine the totality of the evidence.” United States v. LaraVelasquez, 919 F.2d 946, 952 (5th Cir. 1990).

“Even if the district court errs in its decision to give the deliberate

ignorance instruction, any such error is harmless where substantial evidence of

actual knowledge was presented at trial.” United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 897,

906 (5th Cir. 2009) (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

2. Additional Facts

After a colloquy with the prosecution and the various defense counsel for

Salas and the ML Appellants, the district court found a sufficient basis for the

“deliberate ignorance” instruction with respect to Salas, Lopez, and Galaviz.

Accordingly, the district court gave a “deliberate ignorance” instruction that

matched our pattern instruction word-for-word, see Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury

Instructions (Criminal Cases) §§ 1.37, 1.37A (2012), with the added final

sentence that “[t]his instruction does not apply to defendant [Magana].”

3. Applicable Law
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

24

“If a deliberate ignorance instruction is given, a ‘balancing’ instruction

should be considered upon [the] request of [the] defendant.” United States v.

Vasquez, 677 F.3d 685, 695-96 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

That is, a “deliberate ignorance instruction does not lessen the government’s

burden to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the knowledge elements of the

crimes have been satisfied.” Id. at 696 (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted). “Although a deliberate ignorance instruction should rarely be given,

we have permitted its use to inform the jury that it may consider evidence of the

defendant’s charade of ignorance as circumstantial proof of guilty knowledge.”

United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 289 (5th Cir. 2002) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). “It is only to be given when a defendant

claims a lack of guilty knowledge and the proof at trial supports an inference of

deliberate indifference.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“[I]n a multiple-defendant case where only some of the defendants justify

a deliberate ignorance charge, singling out the defendant who merits the

instruction, based, perhaps, on disputed or equivocal evidence, may be unfairly

prejudicial to that defendant.” Id. at 290 (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). “It is equally true, however, that giving the instruction generally,

without naming a specific defendant, may prejudice those co-defendants who do

not merit the instruction.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“Thus, we have indicated that the better approach in this situation is to give the

instruction and indicate that it may not apply to all of the defendants.” Id.

(alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

4. Analysis

A “deliberate ignorance”instruction is proper when the evidence shows (i)

“subjective awareness of a high probability of the existence of illegal conduct”;

and (ii) “purposeful contrivance to avoid learning of the illegal conduct.”

Bieganowski, 313 F.3d at 289 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

10 To the extent that the district court did err by giving the “deliberate ignorance”

instruction—perhaps with respect to Salas who almost certainly had “actual knowledge”—the

25

“The essential feature of deliberate ignorance is the conscious action of the

defendant—the defendant consciously attempted to escape confirmation of

conditions or events he strongly suspected to exist.” Vasquez, 677 F.3d at 697

(citations, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Lopez commented to CS1 that Salas’s LC Contractors was not in

business “to make money.” Also, in 2008 and 2009, Lopez’s Via Italia business

received significantly more funds from cash deposits and loans than from sales.

Additionally, both Lopez and Galaviz controlled bank accounts for which they

did not receive monthly statements, as well as accounts that received large cash

deposits and wire transfers from drug traffickers in Mexico. Moreover, Lopez

controlled bank accounts from which she regularly allowed others to sign checks

that drew on those accounts. Finally, Lopez and Galaviz made multiple false

statements on loan, sale, or other official documents. For example, they referred

to Salas (their immediate relative) as “Daniel Obregon.” Salas, Lopez, and

Galaviz initiated or participated in large transfers of money across 38 bank

accounts that they controlled, and engaged in a host of transactions for which

they did not have sufficientlegitimate finances to have conducted. For example,

they deposited many times more money into the various bank accounts than

they had earned from legitimate occupations.

On appellate review in these circumstances, this Court considers “the

totality of the evidence.” Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d at 952. In light of the above

evidence,the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining thatthere

had been “a high probability of the existence of illegal conduct,” and that Lopez

and Galaviz had “consciously attempted to escape confirmation” of it. See

Vasquez, 677 F.3d at 697 (citations omitted); Bieganowski, 313 F.3d at 289

(citation omitted).10
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

error was harmless because the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of either

“deliberate ignorance” or “actual knowledge” with respectto Salas and allthree ML Appellants

(including Magana). Miller, 588 F.3d at 906 (citation omitted); see also United States v.

Demmitt, 706 F.3d 665, 677 n.1 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Even if both prongs of the test were not

satisfied and the district court erred in giving the deliberate ignorance instruction, we hold the

error harmless because there was substantial evidence that Demmitt was aware of the

scheme.” (citation omitted)).

26

C. Challenges to the District Court’s Pinkerton Instruction

Alaniz and the ML Appellants submit that the district court abused its

discretion in the manner in which it gave this Circuit’s pattern jury instruction

concerning “Pinkerton liability” as to Counts 3 through 4, 6 through 9, and 11

through 15. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-48 (1946).

1. Additional Standard of Review

“We review claimed deficiencies in a jury charge by looking to the entire

charge as well as the arguments made to the jury.” United States v. Chagra, 807

F.2d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 1986). “Our inquiry is whether in the context of the true

trial scene the jury was given incorrect instructions.” Id. “This is a common

sense approach that recognizes that the jury charge does not stand alone for

separate examination; that the charge is part of a larger picture of whatthe jury

was told.” Id. “Examined apart from context, charges frequently have seemingly

ambiguous expressions and understandably so, given the need of trial courts to

assemble the divergent requests of counsel into a meaningful whole.” Id.

2. Additional Facts

Here,the jury instruction given matched our pattern instruction word-forword. See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases) § 2.22 (2012).

Alaniz, however, argues that the instruction was not clear that, while he was

charged with his co-conspirators’ substantive drug trafficking conduct, he was

not charged with conduct arising out of the separate money laundering

conspiracy (even though Salas was common to both). The ML Appellants make

the same argument with respect to their charge encompassing substantive
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

27

money laundering conduct but notthe separate drug trafficking conspiracy. The

crux of these arguments is that the district court did not pay sufficient heed to

our language in United States v. Armstrong that “Pinkerton liability attaches

only to substantive crimes, notto other conspiracies.” See 619 F.3d 380, 387 (5th

Cir. 2010).

3. Applicable Law

“[A] substantive conviction cannot be upheld solely under Pinkertonunless

the jury was given a Pinkerton instruction.” United States v. Polk, 56 F.3d 613,

619 n.4 (5th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). In this Circuit, the pattern Pinkerton

instruction is read in the disjunctive, allowing for liability “if the offense was

committed in furtherance of, or as a foreseeable consequence of, the

conspiracy[.]” See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases) § 2.22

(2012) (emphasis added). Armstrong, 619 F.3d at 387 (citations omitted); but see

United States v. Gonzalez, 570 F.3d 16, 26 n.8 (1st Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)

(reading the First Circuit’s comparable instruction in the conjunctive).

4. Analysis

Alaniz and the ML Appellants argue that the district court did not

sufficiently distinguish between the drug trafficking conspiracy (Count 1) and

the money laundering conspiracy (Count 10), and the substantive counts

respectively relating to each (drug trafficking: Counts 3-4, 6-9; money

laundering: Counts 11-15). Because they raise this objection for the first time

on appeal, review is for plain error. 

The district court distinguished between the substantive drug trafficking

charges, which it called “the possession counts” and specifically linked to “the

conspiracy charged in Count 1”; and the money laundering charges, which it

called “the transactional counts” and specifically linked to “the conspiracy

charged in Count 10.” In light of the unavoidable ambiguity in a jury charge

involving multiple defendants and multiple instances of alleged conduct, and the
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

28

“common sense approach” to examining a jury charge that this Court has

adopted, see Chagra, 807 F.2d at 402, we perceive no error, plain or otherwise.

D. Challenges to the District Court’s Decision Not to Eliminate

Count 10’s “in Order to Avoid a Reporting Requirement”

Lopez and Magana maintain that the district court abused its discretion

when it declined to amend its jury instructions to eliminate Count 10’s “in order

to avoid a reporting requirement” in the specific charges against them.

1. Additional Standard of Review

The applicable standard for reviewing a properly preserved challenge to

the district court’s jury instructions, including those not given, is set forth supra

under Part IV.A. We presume that a jury follows the instructions given by the

district court. See United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 132 (5th Cir. 2012)

(citation omitted).

2. Additional Facts

Count 10 charged Salas and the ML Appellants with: (i) the concealment

of drug trafficking proceeds; (ii) in order to avoid a reporting requirement; (iii)

by moving funds outside the United States and engaging in monetary

transactions of a value greater than $10,000 through a financial institution.

At closing argument, the prosecutor stated the following:

You can convict every one of these four defendants on a

different theory of money laundering. For example, the

only person who is really involved with the avoidance of

currency transaction reports is going to be [Salas]. . . . He

would be the one that you could convict beyond a

reasonable doubt for conspiracy to engage in money

laundering for the purpose of avoiding a monetary

currency transaction report.

Lopez and Magana contemporaneously objected thatthe prosecutor’s statement

at closing argument had amounted to abandonment of the “in order to avoid a
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

29

reporting requirement” as to all Appellants except Salas, and thatthe applicable

jury instructions required amendment to reflect the abandonment.

3. Analysis

This challenge is unavailing. Here, the district court already had

instructed the jury (i) to base its verdict “solely upon the evidence”; (ii) to

“consider only the evidence presented during the trial”; and (iii) to “[r]emember

that any statements . . . made by the lawyers are not evidence” and “not

binding.” The jury is presumed to have followed those instructions. See Ebron,

683 F.3d at 132 (citation omitted). The district court rightly rejected Lopez and

Magana’s objection because the jury is presumed to have understood that the

prosecutor’s statement was merely her assessment of the evidence, rather than

evidence in and of itself. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its

discretion when it declined to amend its jury instructions.

V. Challenges to Various Statements Made by the Prosecutor

A. Standard of Review

Where a defendant had objected to allegedly improper statements made

by a prosecutor, and the district court admitted the challenged statements over

the defendant’s objection, we review the admission ofthose statements for abuse

of discretion. United States v. Gracia, 522 F.3d 597, 600 n.2 (5th Cir. 2008)

(citations omitted). In doing so, “we must first decide whether the prosecutor

made an improper remark” and, “if an improper remark was made, we must

determine whether the remark affected the substantial rights ofthe defendant.”

Id. (citations omitted). To determine whether a remark prejudiced the

defendant’s substantial rights, we assess “the magnitude of the statement’s

prejudice,” “the effect of any cautionary instructions given,” and “the strength

of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Gallardo-Trapero, 185

F.3d 307, 320 (5th Cir. 1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

11 Because Salas personally raised all four of these challenges, while each remaining

Appellant raised only some of the challenges, we focus on the specific challenges raised by

Salas. All challenges raised by the other Appellants fail for the same reasons that Salas’s do.

30

Where the defendant had made no contemporaneous objection to the

challenged statements, we review only for plain error. Gracia, 522 F.3d at 600

n.2 (citations omitted). To demonstrate plain error, the defendant must show

that there was error, it was plain, and it affected his or her substantial rights.

Id. at 600 (citations omitted). Even if the defendant can meet this burden, “we

still would have discretion to decide whether to reverse, which we generally will

not do unless the plain error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of the judicial proceeding.” Id. (citations omitted).

B. Analysis

All five Appellants argue that various statements made by the prosecutor

amounted to misconduct. These arguments can be grouped into four overarching

challenges. We address them in turn.11

1. Challenge I

The prosecutor said the following during closing argument:

Rather than address the evidence . . . [Salas would] rather

say, well, they should have done this. They should have

gotten DNA off the bundles. They should have gotten hair

fibers. Does he think the bundles of marijuana were

raked? I mean, these agents who testified in this case . . .

are agents who have many, many years of experience

handling these kinds of cases. They know what to do.

(emphasis added). Salas objected, and the district court sustained. Presently,

Salas contends that the district court mishandled his objection by not declaring

a mistrial. He had not contemporaneously requested one.

When a defendant asks this Court to reverse his conviction under such

circumstances, he essentially asks us “to go against the implicit judgment of both
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

31

the trial court and [his] trial counsel that the trial court’s corrective action was

adequate and appropriate.” See United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d 750, 756 (5th

Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the

district court’s decision not to declare a mistrial is for plain error only. Id.

(citation omitted).

“[A] prosecutor’s closing argument cannot roam beyond the evidence

presented during trial: Except to the extent the prosecutor bases any opinion on

the evidence in the case, he may not express his personal opinion on the merits

of the case or the credibility of witnesses.” Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d at 320

(alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, for

“improper comment or questioning to represent reversible error, it generally

must be so pronounced and persistent that it permeates the entire atmosphere

of the trial.” United States v. Castillo, 77 F.3d 1480, 1497 (5th Cir. 1996)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here,the prosecutor’s statement amounted to minor bolstering, which the

district court rightly struck. Therefore, even if the statement were improper

under Gallardo-Trapero, it certainly was not “so pronounced and so persistent

that it permeate[d] the entire atmosphere of the trial.”

2. Challenge II

The following is an additional statement that the prosecutor made during

closing argument:

[I]n every single one of those recordings, ladies and

gentlemen, [Salas] implicates himself as being a member

of the conspiracy as having not only possessed the cocaine

that was seized with him. We proved it was cocaine, yes.

We have to prove it was cocaine. That’s why we brought

chemist after chemist after chemist to testify that the

substance that was seized. . . .
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

32

(emphasis added). The district court halted this statement sua sponte, without

Salas’s trial counsel proffering an objection. Thus, we review Salas’s present

challenge for plain error. Gracia, 522 F.3d at 600 n.2.

Salas’s challenge cannot withstand review. First, Salas cannot show that

the “chemist after chemist after chemist” statement triggered plain error

because the prosecution had called four forensic chemists from the DEA to

testify. If anything, the prosecutor understated in her summation of the

evidence. Moreover, the district court halted the statement sua sponte. Thus,

the only plain error would have been not declaring a mistrial, which Salas’s trial

counsel did not request and which would have been unwarranted regardless.

Second, even if repetition of the word “chemist” could be interpreted as

bolstering, it did not come close to “seriously affect[ing] the fairness, integrity,

or public reputation” of the trial. Gracia, 522 F.3d at 600 n.2 (citations omitted).

3. Challenge III

The following is a third statement that the prosecutor made during the

rebuttal phase of closing argument, this time pertaining to CS2:

Ladies and gentlemen, confidential informants, yes, they

get paid. This isn’t Crime Stoppers, an anonymous tip and

you collect a little something. This is more involved. You

heard [CS2,] as a result of his involvement in another

investigation, he and his entire family had to be relocated

for his safety and security. This isn’t easy coming in here.

. . .

(emphasis added). Salas did not contemporaneously object. Presently, Salas

pursues two challenges on appeal concerning this statement. We review his

challenges for plain error. Gracia, 522 F.3d at 600 n.2.

Salas first contends that the prosecutor’s statement amounted to improper

bolstering. To determine “whether a prosecutor’s comment was improper, it is

necessary to look at the comment in context.” United States v. Insaulgarat, 378
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

33

F.3d 456, 461 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Here, two other statements at

trial preceded the prosecutor’s statement during closing rebuttal. On direct

examination, CS2 testified to exactly what the prosecutor later summarized

during closing argument: that due to his involvement as a DEA informant in an

unrelated investigation, the government had needed to relocate him and his

family for their safety and security. Salas did not contemporaneously object to

that testimony either. Subsequently, during his closing argument, Salas’s trial

counsel implied that CS2’s prior testimony had been colored by the

approximately $300,000 that CS2 had earned over his approximately six and

one-half years as a DEA informant.

In context, we conclude that it was reasonable for the prosecutor to rebut

defense counsel’s closing argument by summarizing CS2’s earlier testimony with

the statement that it “isn’t easy coming in here.” After all, a prosecutor may

“present what amounts to be a bolstering argument if it is specifically done in

rebuttal to assertions made by defense counsel in order to remove any stigma

cast upon [her] witnesses.” United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 415 (5th Cir.

1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, in making her

rebuttal argument, the prosecutor “may argue fair inferences from the evidence

that a witness has no motive to lie.” Gracia, 522 F.3d at 601 (citation omitted).

We therefore reject Salas’s first contention.

Salas also contends that the prosecutor’s statement amounted to an

impermissible appeal to passion or prejudice. See United States v. Crooks, 83

F.3d 103, 107 n.15 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted) (“Counsel is not permitted

to make an appeal to passion or prejudice calculated to inflame the jury.”). This

contention cannot stand. Here, rather than appealing to passion or prejudice,

the prosecutor simply was stating the obvious—that Laredo (where the jurors

themselves lived) is an epicenter of drug violence. Especially within the context

of cleansing the stigma upon CS2 cast by Salas’s counsel, the prosecutor’s
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

34

statement was permissible. At a minimum, the district court’s failure to strike

it sua sponte was not plain error. We therefore reject Salas’s second contention.

4. Challenge IV

Finally, the prosecutor stated the following during the opening phase of

closing argument: “The defense is going to get up here. They’re going to attack

me. They’re going to attack the agents. They’re going to attack the confidential

sources. And they’re going to attack the cooperating defendants, ladies and

gentlemen. . . .” No defendant contemporaneously objected to this statement.

We review any challenges to it for plain error only. Gracia, 522 F.3d at 600 n.2.

Salas and the other Appellants presently contend that the prosecutor’s

statement amounted to an improper attack on the integrity of the various

defense counsel. The government makes the argument that the prosecutor

anticipated attacks by defense counsel and, therefore, acted preemptively. We

need not decide whether the statement was improper because, under our

precedent, the statement—even if improper—would not have caused the

defendants substantial prejudice.

In Gallardo-Trapero, we were confronted with a prosecutor’s improper

attempt “to bolster [her] credibility . . . and that of the DEA agents who testified

by invoking the authority of the United States and cloaking [her argument and

the agents’ testimony] in the mantle of the federal government.” 185 F.3d at

319. Specifically, the prosecutor had stated: “I repeat, do you think that agents

for the federal government and a prosecutor for the federal government, for the

United States of America, are going to . . . get on the witness stand and commit

perjury and risk their career[s]. It’s not going to happen, ladies and gentlemen.”

Id.; see also id. n.5 (providing a larger excerpt from the trial transcript).

We found the prosecutor’s remarks to have been improper, explaining that

“‘itis particularly improper, indeed, pernicious,for a prosecutor to seek to invoke

[her] personal status as the government’s attorney or the sanction of the
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

35

government itself as a basis for convicting a criminal defendant.’” See id. at 319-

20 & n.6 (alteration added) (quoting United States v. Goff, 847 F.2d 149 (5th Cir.

1988) (citation omitted)). Nonetheless, we concluded that the prosecutor’s

remarks had not prejudiced the defendants’ substantial rights. See id. at 321.

Here, unlike in Gallardo-Trapero, Salas and the other Appellants had

made no contemporaneous objection to the prosecutor’s remarks. Also, counsel

has pointed to no on-point authority dictating that the remarks were improper.

This is rightly so since chiding the zealousness of defense counsel’s presentation,

even if improper, is a sin of lesser magnitude than suggesting that a witness for

the prosecution be believed simply because he or she is a federal agent. In

contrast to the circumstances in Gallardo-Trapero, where there was not

reversible prejudice, this is an easier case. We therefore reject this challenge.

VI. Sentencing Challenges

A. Standard of Review

A challenge to alleged sentencing errors is properly preserved if raised

below. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (citations omitted). If not properly preserved, we review only for plain

error. Id. (citations omitted). If properly preserved, we review for abuse of

discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

“We apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to the district court’s

factual determination regarding the quantity of drugs used to establish the base

offense level. A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light

of the record as a whole.” United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 403 (5th Cir.

1997) (citation omitted). “Ultimately, the district court need only determine its

factualfindings at sentencing by a preponderance of the relevant and sufficiently

reliable evidence.” UnitedStates v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 247 (5th Cir. 2005)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

36

“Generally, a PSR bears sufficient indicia of reliability to permit the

sentencing court to rely on it at sentencing. . . . [I]n the absence of rebuttal

evidence, the sentencing court may properly rely on the PSR and adopt it.”

United States v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).

“The defendant bears the burden of showing that the information in the PSR

relied on by the district court is materially untrue.” United States v. Valencia,

44 F.3d 269, 274 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). “Mere objections do not

suffice as competent rebuttal evidence.” United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322,

329 (citation omitted).

B. Challenges to the Statutory Maximum Sentence Used by the

District Court for Count 10

1. Additional Facts

Count 10 charged Salas and the ML Appellants with a conspiracy in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), the object of which was a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1957 and various violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a). Count 10 was submitted

to the jury without any special interrogatories asking the jury to specify which

of the provisions each defendant had conspired to violate. Thus, it is unclear

whether the four convictions were for conspiracies to violate § 1957 or for

conspiracies to violate one of the provisions of § 1956(a).

Upon the four defendants’ convictions, the district court credited the

penalties prescribed by § 1956(a), as referenced by § 1956(h), in setting the

defendants’ maximum sentences at 20 years each. The problem is that, while §

1956(a) prescribes a maximum penalty of 20 years for its violation, § 1957

prescribes a maximum penalty of only 10 years.

Salas received the full 20 years imprisonment. The three ML Appellants

each received 11 years, 3 months imprisonment. On appeal, the ML Appellants

argue that it is unclear under which statute—§ 1957 or § 1956(a)—the jury
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

12 Salas, by contrast, does not challenge his Count 10 sentence. Presumably, Salas does

not pursue a challenge because, even if successful, it would have no bearing in light, inter alia,

of his concurrent life sentences for Counts 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9. Nevertheless, as discussed below,

the government concedes that Salas’s sentence—as well as the ML Appellants’

sentences—should be vacated for re-sentencing in light of controlling authority. We agree and,

accordingly, vacate Salas’s unchallenged Count 10 sentence as plain error.

37

convicted them. Thus, they argue that their Count 10 sentences should not

exceed § 1957’s lower, 10-year, maximum.12

2. Analysis

“[W]here a jury verdict is ambiguous, a sentence imposed for a conviction

on a count charging violations of multiple statutes or provisions . . . may not

exceed the lowest of the potentially applicable maximums . . . .” United States

v. Conley, 349 F.3d 837, 840 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation and footnote omitted).

Here, the government rightly concedes that Conley is controlling, and that the

sentences of Salas and the ML Appellants should therefore be vacated. We thus

vacate those Appellants’ sentences—as to Count 10 only—and remand for resentencing.

C. Appellants’ More General Challenges to Their Sentences

Aside from their challenges to the statutory maximum sentence used for

Count 10, Salas and the ML Appellants also raise more general challenges to

their respective sentences. We address them in turn.

1. Salas

Salas’s raises two issues. The first is whether the district court erred by

attributing the entire $1,913,937—which was deposited into the 38 bank

accounts controlled by Salas and the ML Appellants—to drug trafficking, and

then converting the $1,913,937 into marijuana-equivalent for purposes of

applying the Sentencing Guidelines. The second is whether the court erred by
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

13 The PO applied the 2010 edition of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual.

14 The PO similarly grouped the counts of conviction, and applied the Sentencing

Guidelines using Count 10, for Lopez, Galaviz, and Magana.

15 The PO explained that Salas generally had sold marijuana for $280 to $300 per lb.

38

adopting the recommendation of the probation officer (“PO”) that Salas receive

a 4-level leader/organizer enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).13

a. Additional Facts

Pursuantto U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2,thePO grouped the various counts on which

Salas was convicted. She then applied the Sentencing Guidelines using Count

10 because it resulted in the highest base offense level.14 In Salas’s pre-sentence

report (“PSR”), the PO held him liable for all of the activities of both the drug

trafficking and the money laundering conspiracies. Thus, the PO held Salas

accountable for all cocaine and marijuana actually seized, as well as for any

historical loads (trafficked in the past).

In order to combine the cocaine and marijuana offenses for sentencing

purposes,the PO converted all seized cocaine to marijuana-equivalent using the

Drug Equivalency Table provided in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Application Note 10(E).

The PO then derived a combined (cocaine and marijuana) offense pertaining to

28,978 kg. of marijuana-equivalent.

Salas and the ML Appellants controlled 38 bank accounts into which

$1,913,937 was deposited between 2002 and 2009. The PO attributed the entire

$1,913,937 to drug trafficking. In accordance with the instructions provided in

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Application Note 12, she assumed that they had received $280

in revenue per lb. of marijuana trafficked.15 The PO divided the $1,913,937 by

$280 to derive an offense pertaining to 6835.5 lbs. of marijuana-equivalent. She

then restated the derived offense as pertaining to its metric equivalent: 3100.5

kg. of marijuana-equivalent. Adding the 3100.5 kg of marijuana-equivalent from

historical loads to the 28,978 kg. of marijuana-equivalent from drugs actually
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

16 The PO noted that 43 is the maximum Total Offense Level and, therefore, proceeded

to treat Salas’s Total Offense Level as 43 even though it actually amounted to 46 postadjustments.

17 All four Appellants raising Sentencing Guidelines challenges had a Criminal History

Category of I.

39

seized, the PO calculated an aggregate base offense pertaining to 32,078.5 kg.

of marijuana-equivalent. Using the Drug Quantity Table provided in U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(c)(1), the PO identified a Base Offense Level of 38.

In light, inter alia, of the trial testimony of cooperating witness Heriberto

Benavides, the PO later added 107,000 kg. of previously uncounted marijuanaequivalent (300 kg. of cocaine)to Salas’s base offense, for an amended aggregate

base offense pertaining to 139,078.5 kg. of marijuana-equivalent. Since 38 was

the maximum Base Offense Level, and Salas already had been responsible for

more than the 30,000 kg. threshold of that Base Offense Level, the amended

aggregate had no meaningful effect with respect to the Drug Quantity Table.

The PO recommended a 2-level enhancement for conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 1956(a). She recommended another 2-level enhancement for

“sophisticated” money laundering. She also recommended a 4-level

enhancementfor leading/organizing. The PO declined to recommend a reduction

for acceptance of responsibility. Thus, the PO recommended a Total Offense

Level of 43.16 Since Salas had zero prior convictions, he had zero criminal

history points and, therefore, a Criminal History Category of I.17 Accordingly,

Salas’s Guidelines range was “life.”

At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the PSR (as

amended) in full, including the 107,000 kg. of added marijuana-equivalent, as

well as the three upward adjustments and the one downward adjustment. Salas

chose not to speak in his own defense. After the district court asked Salas’s trial

counsel for a proposed sentence under the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a), counsel requested that the sentence not exceed 25 years. The district
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

40

court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, and had concluded that

Salas’s conduct warranted “very stiff . . . statutory penalties.”

b. Analysis

i. Whether the district court erred by

attributing the entire $1,913,937 to drug

trafficking, and by converting it into

marijuana-equivalent.

On appeal, Salas argues that the district court erred by adopting the

PSR—in which the PO had attributed the entire $1,913,937 to historical drug

loads, and had converted itinto 3100.5 kg. of marijuana-equivalent. Specifically,

Salas contends that it is improper to derive historical drug loads in this manner

when there were actual drugs seized.

This argument is flawed. After all, Salas does not challenge the

amendment to the PSR based on Benavides’s testimony, in which the PO added

the 107,000 kg. of previously uncounted marijuana-equivalent. The district

court adopted the PSR in full, including the amendment. Because the 107,000

kg. of marijuana-equivalent alone were sufficient to surpass the 30,000 kg.

threshold for the maximum Base Offense Level of 38, whether or not the derived

3100.5 kg. of historical loads were included in the aggregate base offense is

inconsequential. Thus, without deciding whether the district court erred when

it attributed the entire $1,913,937 to drug trafficking, and when it converted the

$1,913,937 into marijuana-equivalent for purposes of applying the Sentencing

Guidelines, any error was harmless.

ii. Whether the district court erred by

adopting the 4-level sentencing

enhancement for leading or organizing the

money laundering conspiracy.

“If the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that

involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase [the

offense level] by 4 levels.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) (2010) (emphasis omitted). A

“participant” is a person who “participate[d] knowingly in some part of the
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

18 Compean, Perez, and Davalos apparently were additional targets of the joint

DEA/IRS “Operation Reload.” They are not party to this appeal.

41

criminal enterprise.” United States v. Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 396 (5th Cir. 2000)

(citation omitted).

“In distinguishing a leadership and organizational role from one of mere

management or supervision, titles . . . are not controlling.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1,

cmt. n.4 (2010). Instead, the sentencing court should consider (i) “the exercise

of decision making authority”; (ii)“the nature of participation in the commission

of the offense”; (iii) “the recruitment of accomplices”; (iv) “the claimed right to a

larger share of the fruits of the crime”; (v) “the degree of participation in

planning or organizing the offense”; (vi) “the nature and scope of the illegal

activity”; and (vii) “the degree of control and authority exercised over others.”

Id.

Here, the district court adopted the PSR in full. In the PSR, the PO had

observed that Salas, at a minimum, had conspired with the ML Appellants—as

well as Omar Compean, Javier Hugo Perez, and Miguel Davalos—in the money

laundering offenses.18 Thus, the money laundering conspiracy involved “five or

more participants.” The PO also had observed that the conspiracy involved 38

different bank accounts and the movement of $1,913,937 in drug trafficking

proceeds. Thus, the conspiracy was “otherwise extensive.”

“The district court’s determination that a defendant was a leader or

organizer under subsection 3B1.1(a) is a factual finding that this court reviews

for clear error.” United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163, 173 (5th Cir. 2002) (per

curiam) (citation omitted). A factual finding on a sentencing factor is not clearly

erroneous so “long as it is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.”

United States v. Morris, 46 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

Here, regarding the seven factors from § 3B1.1, Salas, inter alia, had (i)

recruited his wife, mother, and sister into the conspiracy; (ii) exercised authority
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

42

and control over Compean, Perez, and Davalos; and (iii) disproportionately

enjoyed the fruits of the conspiracy by purchasing luxury vehicles and real estate

(through his co-conspirators). In light of the considerable evidence discussed

throughout this opinion, and “the record read as a whole,” the district court’s

determination that Salas was an organizer or leader was not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the district court did not err by adopting the PO’s recommendation

that Salas receive the 4-level leader/organizer enhancement.

For the above-stated reasons, we wholly affirm Salas’s sentence, other

than as discussed supra in Part VI.B with respect to the statutory maximum

sentence used for Count 10.

2. The ML Appellants

We proceed to the sentencing challenges raised by the three ML

Appellants. First, all three Appellants challenge the district court’s decision to

hold them liable for the entire $1,913,937 laundered, as opposed to just the

amounts that each had personally laundered. Second, all three Appellants

challenge the district court’s adoption of a 2-level sentencing enhancement for

“sophisticated laundering” pursuantto U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(3). Third, Lopez and

Magana challenge the district court’s denial of a 2-level sentencing reduction

under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) for being a “minor participant” in the money

laundering conspiracy. Fourth, Lopez challenges the district court’s denial of her

request for a downward departure under the “family ties and responsibilities”

policy statement contained in U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. Fifth and finally, all three

Appellants argue that the district court insufficiently considered the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors.

a. Additional Facts

Count 10 charged each ML Appellant, inter alia, with a conspiracy in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) involving the full $1,913,937 in laundered funds.

The Sentencing Guideline applicable to § 1956(h) is U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a)(2) which,
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

43

in turn, references U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1). Applying these two Guidelines to each

Appellant’s § 1956(h) conviction for an offense involving more than $1,000,000

but less than $2,500,000, the PO identified a Base Offense Level of 24.

For each Appellant, the PO recommended a 6-level enhancement because

the Appellant knew, or should have known, that the laundered funds were drug

trafficking proceeds. The PO recommended a 2-level enhancement for conviction

under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a), see U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2) (2010), and another 2-level

enhancement for laundering that involved “sophisticated” means. She declined

to recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Thus, for each

Appellant, the PO recommended a Total Offense Level of 34.

At the sentencing hearing, Lopez and Magana each asserted entitlement

to a 2-level reduction for being a “minor participant” in the money laundering

conspiracy. Lopez also requested a downward departure in light of U.S.S.G. §

5H1.6’s “family ties and responsibilities” policy statement. She represented that

her children would be left parentless for an extended period of time were both

she and Salas given lengthy sentences. Lopez stressed that her son has special

needs, which cannot be properly attended to in her absence.

The district court adopted each Appellant’s PSR in full, with one limited

exception. As discussed supra inPart VI.B,there were no special interrogatories

specifying whether the jury convicted the Count 10 defendants for the

substantive 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) offenses or for the 18 U.S.C. § 1957 offense.

Recognizing this infirmity in the context of U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)’s sentencing

enhancement, the court adopted the lower 1-level enhancement from §

2S1.1(b)(2)(A) (for violation of § 1957) rather than the higher 2-level

enhancement from § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) (for violation of § 1956(a)). Accordingly, the

court adopted a Total Offense Level of 33. Each Appellant’s Guidelines range

was “135-168” months.

b. Analysis
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

44

i. The District Court’s Decision to Hold Each

ML Appellant Liable for the Entire

$1,913,937 Laundered, As Opposed to Just

the Amounts That Each Had Personally

Laundered

“The court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss” (in other

words, “the amount laundered”). U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(C) (2010) (citation

omitted). “The sentencing judge is in a unique position to assess the evidence

and estimate the loss based upon that evidence. For this reason, the court’s loss

determination is entitled to appropriate deference.” Id. (citation omitted). In

calculating the Base Offense Level, “the sentencing judge holds the defendant

accountable for losses due to the defendant’s own conduct as well as for those

due to the defendant’s ‘relevant conduct.’” United States v. Hammond, 201 F.3d

346, 351 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 (2010)). “A

defendant’s relevant conduct includes ‘all reasonably foreseeable acts and

omissions of others in furtherance of jointly undertaken criminal activity.’” Id.

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2010)).

“The Government [is] only required to prove the loss amount by a

preponderance of the evidence.” Ollison, 555 F.3d at 164 (citation omitted). If

the loss amount “is difficult or impracticable to determine, the value of the

laundered funds . . . is the total amount of the commingled funds.” U.S.S.G. §

2S1.1, cmt. n.3(B); see also UnitedStates v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 404 (6th Cir.

2005) (citation omitted). The burden lies with the defendant to “provide[]

sufficient information to determine the amount of criminally derived funds

without unduly complicating or prolonging the sentencing process.” Id.

• Lopez

Here, Lopez contends (i) that at least some of the $1,913,937 was

legitimately derived income; (ii) that she had not been aware of Salas’s drug
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

45

trafficking; and (iii) that Via Italia was a legitimate business. The district court

rejected all three contentions.

With respectto Lopez’s first contention,the district courtfound thatLopez

had not provided sufficient information or records to determine whether any of

the $1,913,937 was legitimate and, therefore, presumed that all of it was

illegitimate under Note 3(B) of the Commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1. Regarding

Lopez’s second contention, the court found that it had been “reasonably

foreseeable” to Lopez that at least some of the $1,913,937 was drug trafficking

proceeds, which Lopez was then laundering through the 38 different bank

accounts controlled by Salas and the other ML Appellants. Finally, concerning

Lopez’s third contention, the court found that if Via Italia had indeed been a

legitimate business, then Lopez would not have used one of its bank accounts to

purchase the $35,000 CD that she then used as collateral for a loan. Also, Via

Italia’s bank accounts would not have received $24,000 in checks from Salas, or

two cross-border wire transfers from Becerra.

In light of the “appropriate deference” to the district court articulated in

Note 3(C) ofthe Commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, we conclude that the court did

not err by holding Lopez liable for the entire $1,913,937. After all, this opinion

is replete with evidence that the drug trafficking and money laundering

activities were “reasonably foreseeable,” and that Via Italia was a sham entity.

As for Lopez’s claim that at least some of the $1,913,937 was legitimate, it

fails—even if true—because Lopez co-mingled any legitimate funds and did

produce records to un-mingle them.

• Galaviz

Here, the district court adopted the PSR, in which the PO had found that

Galaviz had (i) opened seven bank accounts and used them to launder $509,665;

(ii) received a $58,692 wire transfer from Magana for no apparent legitimate

purpose; (iii) engaged in the various check transactions involving the Deer Ridge
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

46

lot; and (iv) allowed Salas to buy a house in her name using drug trafficking

proceeds. At a minimum, Galaviz is personally responsible for those

transactions, which collectively involved more than $1,000,000 in illicit funds.

Accordingly, Galaviz’s liability for those transactions alone sufficiently supports

her sentence.

That said, the court also noted additional “relevant conduct,” which

indicated that Galaviz knew Salas was a drug trafficker. See Hammond, 201

F.3d at 351 (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 (2010)). Specifically, the court noted that

Galaviz (i) had been a signatory on the bank account of LC Contractors (Salas’s

sham construction company); (ii) had referred to Salas (her son) by his criminal

alias in official documents; and (iii) had “flipped” Salas’s Patron Loop house for

a $150,000 profit. In light of the “appropriate deference” this Court affords the

sentencing judge’s loss determination, see U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(C) (2010)

(citation omitted), the above-recited evidence was more than sufficient to

establish Galaviz’s knowledge and hold her liable for all laundering of the

$1,913,937 in drug trafficking proceeds. See Hammond, 201 F.3d at 351 (“A

defendant’s relevant conduct includes ‘all reasonably foreseeable acts and

omissions of others in furtherance of jointly undertaken criminal activity.’”

(quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) (2010))).

For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not err when it

held Galaviz liable for the entire $1,913,937 laundered.

• Magana

Magana contends that, at most, she should be liable for the $154,792 in

funds that passed through Chase Account No. 7697, which she controlled. While

Magana personally opened ten additional bank accounts during the time period

applicable to this case, she asserts that those accounts were used for legitimate

purposes and that at least some of them were opened jointly with either her exhusband or current boyfriend.
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

47

The district court adopted the PSR, in which the PO had found that

Magana had personally deposited $74,600 in cash into Chase Account No. 7697,

but also had received a $52,130.51 wire transfer from Galaviz into that account.

Magana worked at a hair salon at the time she deposited the $74,600 in cash,

which greatly exceeded her legitimate income. Also, Galaviz lived with Magana

at the time Galaviz transferred the $52,130.51. Magana was claiming Galaviz

as a dependant for federal income tax purposes and, therefore, knew or should

have known that Galaviz likely had not derived the $52,130.51 from legitimate

sources.

Magana used the funds transferred from Galaviz (in addition to the cash

Magana had previously deposited) to purchase an $80,000 CD. Upon the CD’s

maturation, Magana wired $25,000 of its proceeds to Becerra. She wired the

remaining $58,692 of the proceeds back to Galaviz (specifically, to BBVA

Compass Account No. 6826, which Galaviz controlled). There was no apparent

purpose to this sequence of transactions other than to launder funds that

somehow were illicit. Under Hammond, the district court did not err in holding

Magana accountable for the reasonably foreseeable acts of her co-conspirators.

Judge Alvarez explained to Magana atthe sentencing hearing that: (i) she

did not“understand how [Magana] could not have known what[her] brother was

doing”; (ii) laundering drug trafficking proceeds is “part of what makes these

types of operations work”; and (iii) both launderers and traffickers are “equally

responsible for the serious problem that we have, both on this side and on that

side of the border.” We agree. The district court did not err by holding Magana

liable for the entire $1,913,937 laundered.

ii. The District Court’s Adoption of a

“Sophisticated Laundering” Enhancement

for Each ML Appellant

U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 prescribes a 2-level enhancement for an offense that

involved “sophisticated laundering.” U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(3) (2010).
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

48

“[S]ophisticated laundering means complex or intricate offense conduct

pertaining to the execution or concealment of the 18 U.S.C. § 1956 offense.” Id.

§ 2S1.1, cmt. n.5(A) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Sophisticated

laundering typically involves the use of . . . (i) fictitious entities; (ii) shell

corporations; (iii) two or more levels . . . of transactions . . . involving criminally

derived funds that were intended to appear legitimate; or (iv) offshore financial

accounts.” Id.; see also Fernandez, 559 F.3d at 320.

• Lopez

Here, the district court found that Lopez had acknowledged that LC

Contractors was a sham when she had conceded to CS1 that it was not in

business “to make money.” Moreover, the district court found that Lopez had

used Via Italia to engage in a layered transaction—involving the purchase of a

CD and the use of that CD as collateral for a loan. Finally, the district court

found that bank accounts controlled by Lopez or Via Italia had been used to

make wire transfers of large dollar values to and from accounts in Mexico

controlled by drug traffickers. Because the district court’s findings covered all

of the indicia of “sophisticated” laundering provided in Note 5(A) of the

Commentary to § 2S1.1, we conclude that it did not err by adopting the 2-level

sentencing enhancement.

• Galaviz

Here, the same evidence set forth in Part VI.C.2.b supra, concerning

Galaviz’s challenge to the district court holding her liable for the entire

$1,913,937 laundered, applies equally to the Note 5(A) indicia of “sophisticated

laundering.” Additionally, Galaviz shared control of IBC Account No. 0654 with

Lopez. Between February 2008 and April 2008, that account received $27,970

in cross-border wire transfers from Becerra in Mexico. Galaviz and Lopez also

shared control of BBVA Compass Account No. 1782. Between February 2008

and May 2008, that account received $245,995 in cross-border wire transfers
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

49

from Becerra, Garza-Rodriguez, and Martinez-Garcia in Mexico. Altogether, this

evidence implicated every Note 5(A) indicium of “sophisticated laundering.” We

therefore conclude that the district court did not err when it adopted the §

2S1.1(b)(3) sentencing enhancement.

• Magana

Here, as with Galaviz, the same evidence set forth in Part VI.C.2.b supra,

concerning Magana’s challenge to the district court holding her liable for the

entire $1,913,937 laundered, applies equally to the Note 5(A) indicia of

“sophisticated laundering.” Together with the fact that Magana acted as a

strawman for Galaviz in the Becerra wire transfer to Mexico, and that Magana

used a CD to launder Galaviz’s transferred funds, this evidence implicated

almost all of the Note 5(A) indicia. We therefore conclude that the district court

did not err when it adopted the sentencing enhancement.

iii. The District Court’s Denial of a “Minor

Participant” Reduction to Lopez and

Magana

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 prescribes a 2-level reduction if a “defendant was a minor

participant in [the] criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) (2010). A “minor

participant” is a defendant who is “substantially less culpable than the average

participant,” but “whose role could not be described as minimal.” Id. § 3B1.2,

cmt. nn.3(A), 5.

“When a defendant timely objects to a district court’s failure to make a

downward adjustment based on section 3B1.2, this court reviews [her] sentence

for clear error.” United States v. Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d 258, 273 n.12 (5th

Cir. 2008). The defendant’s participation level in the offense is not evaluated “in

reference to the entire criminal enterprise of which [she was] a part.” United

States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Rather, it

is evaluated in reference to “that of an average participant.” Id. (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted). The defendant’s role was not minor if it was
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

50

“actually coextensive with the conduct for which [she] was held accountable.”

Id. at 598-99 (citations omitted).

The defendant “bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the

evidence, her minor role in the offense.” United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254,

1261 (5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). “The sentencing court is free to consider

all relevant evidence, even inadmissible evidence, in determining whether an

adjustment is warranted so long as the evidence has . . . sufficient indicia of

reliability to supportits probable accuracy.” United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d

434, 446 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

• Lopez

Here, Lopez argues that because she played a lesser role in the money

laundering scheme than did Salas, her role was “minor” within the meaning of

§ 3B1.2(b) even if not “minimal” within the meaning of § 3B1.2(a). This

reasoning is flawed. After all, it only shows that Lopez was an average

participant, rather than the organizer or leader. The district court found that,

at a minimum, Lopez personally opened ten Wells Fargo bank accounts and

laundered $361,934 in drug trafficking proceeds. Thus, her role was not

“substantially less” than the other participants. We therefore conclude that the

district court did not err by denying § 3B1.2(b)’s 2-level reduction.

• Magana

Here, even though Magana’s name is on fewer incriminating documents

than those of Lopez and Galaviz, it is apparent that Magana played at least an

average role in the money laundering conspiracy, and certainly not a

“substantially lesser” one. After all, the district court found that Magana had

opened eleven of the 38 bank accounts used in the conspiracy and had engaged

in direct contact with Becerra in Mexico. Accordingly, the district court did not

clearly err in denying Magana the § 3B1.2(b) sentencing reduction.
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

51

iv. The District Court’s Denial to Lopez of a

Downward Departure Under the U.S.S.G. §

5H1.6 “Family Ties and Responsibilities”

Policy Statement

The district court declined to grant a downward departure for “family ties

and responsibilities” because Lopez and Salas had knowingly risked the

possibility their children would be left parentless by engaging in their criminal

activities. Lopez challenges this denial. However, her challenge is foreclosed as

a matter of law.

We have “jurisdiction to review a district court’s decision not to depart

downward from the guideline range only if the district court based its decision

upon an erroneous belief that it lacked the authority to depart. . . . [S]omething

in the record mustindicate thatthe district court held such an erroneous belief.”

United States v. Landerman, 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1999) (citations

omitted). Here, nothing in the record indicates that the district court

erroneously believed that it lacked authority to grant a departure. Indeed, the

district court expressly explained that a departure was unwarranted. Thus, this

challenge is beyond our jurisdiction. We reject it without reaching the merits.

v. The Sufficiency of the District Court’s

Consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

Factors with Respect to All Three ML

Appellants

We conclude thatthe district court’s consideration of the various § 3553(a)

factors was sufficient. The district court, for example, noted its consideration of

the principle that Lopez, Galaviz, and Magana should be sentenced similarly for

similar crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Judge Alvarez also made the

following two statements in open court: (i) “The Court has, in preparing for the

sentencing, also gone back and reviewed the 3553 factors as it does in every

single case”; and (ii) “The Court, as I touched on, has considered the 3553 A

factors.” At least on the specific facts of this case, this amounted to sufficient

consideration of the § 3553(a) factors as to the three ML Appellants.
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

52

Additionally, to the extent the Appellants challenge the district court’s

denial of a downward departure under the § 3553(a) factors, rather than just the

sufficiency of the court’s consideration of those factors, that challenge is not

reviewable. See Landerman, 167 F.3d at 899 (citations omitted).

VII. Applicability of the Cumulative Error Doctrine

The final issue on appeal is whether the cumulative error doctrine applies

to this case. The cumulative error doctrine “essentially summarizes the other

issues raised” in an appeal. See United States v. Stephens, 571 F.3d 401, 411

(5th Cir. 2009) (footnote omitted). Under the doctrine, “relief may be obtained

only when constitutional errors so fatally infect the trial that they violate the

trial’s fundamental fairness.” Id. at 412 (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted). Where a defendant-appellant “has not established any error . . . there

is nothing to cumulate.” See United States v. McIntosh, 280 F.3d 479, 484 (5th

Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

Here, other than as discussed supra regarding the statutory maximum

sentence used for Count 10, Appellants have not established any errors—let

alone constitutional errors that infringe upon fundamental fairness. We

therefore conclude that the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we wholly AFFIRM Alaniz’s convictions and

sentences. Due to a Sentencing Guidelines error conceded by the government,

we VACATE the sentences of Salas, Lopez, Galaviz, and Magana as to Count 10

only, and REMAND for re-sentencing. We otherwise AFFIRM the convictions

and sentences in full.

APPENDIX

A. The Indictment

Appellants were charged by the following sixteen-count indictment:
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

53

Count Charge Statutes

Implicated

Appellants

Implicated

1 Conspiracy to

possess with

intent to

distribute (a)

over 5 kg. of

cocaine; and (b)

over 1000 kg. of

marijuana

Unlawful Act:

21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1)

Penalty:

21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(A)

Conspiracy:

21 U.S.C. § 846

Salas; Alaniz

2 Dismissed prior to trial

3 Possession with

intent to

distribute over 5

kg. of cocaine on

July 18, 2006

Unlawful Act:

21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1)

Penalty:

21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(A)

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Salas; Alaniz

4 Possession with

intent to

distribute over 5

kg. of cocaine on

February 26,

2007

Unlawful Act:

21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1)

Penalty:

21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(A)

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Salas
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

54

5 Possession with

intent to

distribute over

100 kg. of

marijuana on

February 27,

2007

Unlawful Act:

21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1)

Penalty:

21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(B)

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Salas

6 Possession with

intent to

distribute over

1000 kg. of

marijuana on

September 18,

2007

Unlawful Act:

21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1)

Penalty:

21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(A)

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Salas

7 Possession with

intent to

distribute over

100 kg. of

marijuana on

October 10, 2007

Unlawful Act:

21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1)

Penalty:

21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(B)

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Salas
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

55

8 Possession with

intent to

distribute over

100 kg. of

marijuana on

October 18, 2007

Unlawful Act:

21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1)

Penalty:

21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(B)

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Salas

9 Possession with

intent to

distribute over

1000 kg. of

marijuana on

December 21,

2009

Unlawful Act:

21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1)

Penalty:

21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(A)

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Salas
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

56

10 Conspiracy to

launder the

proceeds of drug

trafficking (a) so

as to conceal the

nature, location,

and source of the

proceeds; (b) so

as to avoid a

transaction

reporting

requirement; and

(c) by moving or

attempting to

move monetary

instruments and

funds from the

United States to

a place outside

the United

States. (d)

Conspiracy to

knowingly

engage in

monetary

transactions,

affecting

interstate

commerce, in

criminally

derived property

of a value

greater than

$10,000, such

property having

been derived

from drug

trafficking.

Unlawful Acts &

Penalties:

18 U.S.C. §§

1956(a)(1)(B)(i),

1956(a)(1)(B)(ii),

1956(a)(2)(B)(i),

1957

Conspiracy:

18 U.S.C. §

1956(h)

Salas; Lopez;

Galaviz; Magana
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

57

11 Knowingly

engaging in a

monetary

transaction in

criminally

derived property

of a value grater

than $10,000, on

April 17, 2007,

such property

having been

derived from

drug trafficking

Unlawful Act &

Penalty:

18 U.S.C. § 1957

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Lopez

12 Knowingly

engaging in a

monetary

transaction in

criminally

derived property

of a value grater

than $10,000, on

March 27, 2007,

such property

having been

derived from

drug trafficking

Unlawful Act &

Penalty:

18 U.S.C. § 1957

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Magana

13 Knowingly

engaging in a

monetary

transaction in

criminally

derived property

of a value grater

than $10,000, on

January 23,

2008, such

property having

been derived

from drug

trafficking

Unlawful Act &

Penalty:

18 U.S.C. § 1957

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Galaviz
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

58

14 Knowingly

engaging in a

monetary

transaction in

criminally

derived property

of a value grater

than $10,000, on

April 17, 2008,

such property

having been

derived from

drug trafficking

Unlawful Act &

Penalty:

18 U.S.C. § 1957

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Galaviz

15 Knowingly

engaging in a

monetary

transaction in

criminally

derived property

of a value grater

than $10,000, on

April 17, 2008,

such property

having been

derived from

drug trafficking

Unlawful Act &

Penalty:

18 U.S.C. § 1957

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Salas

16 Knowingly

engaging in a

monetary

transaction in

criminally

derived property

of a value grater

than $10,000, on

September 18,

2009, such

property having

been derived

from drug

trafficking

Unlawful Act &

Penalty:

18 U.S.C. § 1957

Aiding &

Abetting:

18 U.S.C. § 2

Galaviz
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

59

B. Convictions/Acquittals

Appellants were convicted or acquitted as follows:

Appellant Counts

Convicted

Counts

Acquitted

Salas 1; 3; 4; 6; 7; 8; 9;

10; 15

5

Alaniz 1; 3

Lopez 10; 11

Galaviz 10; 13; 14 16

Magana 10; 12

C. Sentences

Appellants were sentenced as follows:

Appellant Counts

Convicted

Sentences

(concurrent)

Salas 1 Life

imprisonment 3

4

6

9

7 40 years

imprisonment 8

10 20 years

imprisonment

15 10 years

imprisonment
Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392

60

Alaniz 1 30 years

imprisonment 3

Lopez 10 11 years, 3

months

imprisonment

11 10 years

imprisonment

Galaviz 10 11 years, 3

months

imprisonment

13 10 years

imprisonment 14

Magana 10 11 years, 3

months

imprisonment

12 10 years

imprisonment