### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10451
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. F OR T I NO C OB AI N B UENO , D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore JO L L Y , D eM O S S , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es . E
. G R A D YJO L L Y , C i rcui tJu dg e: F ortino C ob a i n B u en o ap p ea l s h i s con victi on on on e cou n t of con sp i ra cyto c o mmi tp r o mo t i o n a lmo n e yl a u n d e r i n gi n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 9 5 6 (h )
. H e cha l l en ges the su f

f i ci en cy of

t h e evi den ce on severalgroun ds an d f u rt h er ch a ll e n ges t h e reasonab l en ess of hi s s en t en ce. B ecau se w e f i n d n o groun d f

or r e v e r s a l o f e it h e rc o n v ic t io n o rth e s e n t e n c e , w e a ff ir m th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s j u d gm en t. I
. O n M arch 22 , 200 6, I n vest i gator B i l l y Joe S i des st opp ed B u en o f or speed i n g on In t erst ate 20 in M i t chel lC ou n t y, T exas. C i rcum st an ces l ed S i des t o concl u de th a t B u e n o w as i n vol ved i n t h e “ dru g couri er busi n ess, ” an d w h en United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 10451

Bueno argu es th at he does not understan d E nglishso the tape should b e di scounted. 1 He contradicted much of his videotaped statement at tri al. 2 B u e n o a llo w e d S id e s to s e a r c h h is c a r , th e o ffic e r d is c o v e r e d m o n e y w r a p p e d in pl as t i c bags and s t or ed i n hi dden com par t m ent s. B ueno t hen t ol d Si des he w as drivi ng t he c as h t o Cal i f or ni a f or$3, 000. Si des t oo k B u en o a n d hi s c art o as her i f f ’ s subs t at i on. Af

t era t hor ough
s e a r c h , S i d e s d i s c o v e r e d mo r e t h a n $ 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 c o n c e a l e d t h r o u g h o u tt h e c a r . H e t h en condu ct ed a vi deotaped i n t ervi ew t h at w ou l d be t h e governm en t ’ s pri m ary e v id e n c e a t t r ia l. D u r in g th e in te r v ie w , B u e n o s a id h e tr a v e le d fr o m C a lifo r n ia t o at ow n nearFayet t evi l l e, N or t h C ar ol i na. O nce t her e, he r egi st er ed a c art hat he di d no to w n us i ng an ad dr e s s w he r e he di d no tr e s i de
. H e a dm i t t e d t hathe kn ew h e w as w orki n g w i t h dru g t raf f i ckers. H e sai d they p i cked hi m up w h en h e arrived i n N ort h C arol i n a an d gav e h i m m on ey t o d rive t o C al i f orni a. H e al so ad m i t t e d t o o t he rde t ai l s o f t he t r ans ac t i o n t hatt he go ve r nm e ntw o ul d c o nt e nd
w ere t yp i calof

t raf f i cki n g dru g proceeds. 1 At t r i al , Bueno c l ai m ed h e w as f o r c e d t o dr ive t he m o ne y ac r o s s t he
c o unt r y. H e t o l d t he j ur y t hatw he n he l e ar ne d hi s c ar go c on si s t e d o f dr ug m on ey, he ref

u sed, agreei n g on l y af t er t h reat s t o h i s l i fe an d h i s fam i l y’ s l ives. A tn o p o i n tb e f

o r e h a d h e ma d e s u c h a c l a i m. At t he c l o s e o f

e vi de nc e , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti ns t r uc t e d t he j ur y o n t he
e l e m e nt s o f

c o ns pi r ac y t o c o m m i tpr o m o t i o nalm o ne y l aund e r i ng. Reg ar di ng t he
r equi r em entt hatt he m oney be “ pro c ee ds” of an i l l egalact ivi t y, i ti nst r uct ed t hat t h at t h e t erm i n cl u ded “ an y . . . property t h at s om eon e acqu i res or r et ai n s as a r e s u lt o f th e c o m m is s io n o f th e u n d e r ly in gs p e c ifie d a c tiv ity .” T h e co u r t a ls o to ld t h e j u r yt h a ti f

i tb e l i e v e dt h a tB u e n o h a d b e e n c o e r c e d , i ts h o u l d a c q u i th i m. Bueno di d no t o bj e c t t o t he i ns t r uc t i o ns , buthe di d o bj e c tt o t he s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he
e vi de nc e a nd m o ve d f o ra c qui t t al
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d hi s m o t i o n, a nd t he j u r yc o n v i c t e d h i m.N o. 07- 10451

Bu eno argu esth at weshouldreview th e in structio n s de nov o , becau se the governme nt 2 agreed de novo review was ap pr opriateinitsb rief
. We re j ect thisargu me nt. “Th e partie s’ failure to b rief and argue properly the appropriatestan dard [of review] mayle ad the court to choo se the wrongstandard. But no partycan co n t ro l our standard of review.” United States v. Von ts teen , 9 5 0F .2 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 2 ) (e nb anc) (em ph a si s inori gin al)
. 3 The c ou r tr e c e ive d apr e s e nt e nc e r e po r t( “ PSR ” ) t hatr e c o m m e nde d a
s e nt e nc e o f

b e t w e e n 8 7 and108 m o nt hs
. I tc o nt ai ne d v ar i o us e nhan c e m e nt s a nd detai l ed thei r basi s. B u en o di d not obj ectt o t h e P S R , an d the j u dg e sentenced h i m to n i n ety -f

ou r m on th s a ft er he a ri n g arg u m en t. B u e n o n o w a p p e a l s h is convic t i on an d h i s s en t en ce. II. A
. B u en o p rese n ts t h ree arg u m en ts t h a t t h e ev i d en ce w a s i n su ff i ci en t t o convic thi m of co n sp ira cyto c o m m it p ro m o tion a l m o n e ylau n d e rin g . W e di sagree w i t h e ac h. 1
. B u en o fi rst arg u es th a t Un i t ed S t ate s v. S an t os , 1 2 8 S .C t. 2 0 2 0 (20 0 8 ), requ i res t h e governm en tt o show t h at t h e m on ey h e t ran sport ed consti t u t ed prof i t s f rom i l l egal dru g act ivi t y. H e m ak es t h i s argu m en t f or t h e f i rstt i m e on a p p e a l, so w e re v ie w th e c o u r t’s ru lin go n th e s u ffic ie n c yo f th e e v id e n c e fo rp la in
error . Uni t e d St ate s v. Vi l lega s , 404 F. 3d 355, 358 ( 5t h C i r . 2005)
. W e c an

2
r eve r se f

orpl ai n er r oronl y w hen t he t r i alc our t( 1) c om m i t s an er r or( 2) thatw as p la in a n d (3 ) a ffe c ts th e d e fe n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . I d
. If w e f i n d those t h ree fact ors, w e w i l lrevers e only if “th e err or s eri ou sl y af fect s t h e fai rness, i n teg ri ty, o r p u b l i c rep u tati on of j u d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs . ” I d. a t3 58

- 59 ( quo t at i o ns o m itted ). S an t os de c i de d t h at 18 U
. S. C. § 1 95 6( a) ( 1) , w hi c h b ans l aund e r i ng t he

“ pr o c e e ds ” o f

a n unl awf

ula c t ivi t y, r e qui res t he g o ve r nm e ntt o s ho w t hatt he l a u n d ere d m on ey i s p rofi t, n ot si m p l y re ceipts. 12 8 S
. C t. at 20 2 5
. B u t S an t osN o. 07- 10451

Ju dgeDeMoss su ggests th at the F ernan dez court’s subsequent consi derationof what 3 effect anyerror would h ave h ad o n Fernan dez’ s sub stanti al rights indic ates that th e court may not have b eenconvinced that th ere was noplain error . Assuming h e i s co rr ect, the court at most offered an alternative hold in g, aconclu sioncompelle d byit s deci sionto start the substantial rights analysis with “Even wereth ere errorth at was plain
. . . .” I d
. (e m p h a s is added). “This circuit follows the rul e th at alternative holdings arebindin g precede nt and not obi ter dic ta .” Pru ittv. Levi Strauss & Co. , 9 3 2F .2 d 4 5 8 , 4 6 4( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 1 ). 4 a d d r e s s e d a n ille g a l lo tt e r yo p e r a tio n . I d. at 202 2 . T h is ca se i n vol ves a conspir acy t o l au n de r p roceeds of an i l l egal n arcot i cs operati on , a di st i n ct i on th a t m a k e s a d iffe r e n c e . S an t os w as a spl i n t ered deci sion , w i t h a f ou r- j u st i ce pl ur al i t y h ead ed bySc al i a ap pl yi ng t he r ul e o f l e ni t y t o r e qui r e s ho w i ng l a u n d ere d pr ofi ts f

or an y viol a ti on of § 19 5 6 (a)( 1 ). J u sti ce Ste ve n s, w h ose vo te pr o vi de d t he m aj o r i t y, ag r e e d w i t h t he pl ur al i t y’ s r e ad i ng c o nc e r ni ng ga m bl i ng o pe r at i o ns , b uthe t ho ugh tt hat“ pr o c e e ds ” incl u ded al lr e c e i pt s o f dr ug o p e r a tio n s . I

d. a t 2 0 3 2 (S te v e n s , J ., c o n c u r r in g). In an y even t , i ti s not f or th is p a n elt o deci de w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourt com m i t t ed p l ai n err or by fai l i n g t o requ i re the govern m en tto p rove the m on ey Bueno t r ans po r t e d was pr o f i t s . I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. F ernan d ez , t h e courtfaced exactl y t h e sam e i ssue: w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t ed p l ai n err or w h en i tdi d n otrequi re t h e governm en tt o show drugprof i t s, as opposed t o rec ei pts, i n i t s ca s e a l l e g i n gp r o m o t i o n a lmo n e yl a u n d e r i n ga n d c o n s p i r a c yt o d o t he
sam e. 593 F .3d 3 0 3 , 315

- 16 (5t h C i r. 200 9)
. A f t er exam i n i n g t h e S an t os opi n i on s, t h e courtconc l ude d, “W hil e J us t i c e St e ve ns and t h e pl u ral i t y di sagreed o ve rt he pr e c i s e pr e c e de nt i ale f fe c to f hi s s t at e m e nt , t he unc e r t ai nt y r e nde r s a ny erro r h ere n ot ‘ p l a i n . ’” Id
. at 316. W e m u streach t h e sam e deci si on here. 3 2
. Ne x t , Bu e n o a r g u e s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f h i s i n t e n t t o p r o m o t e dr ug tr a ffic k in gw a s in s u ffic ie n t. W e in q u ir e w h e th e ra “r e a s o n a b le tr ie ro f fa c t c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t t h e e le m e n ts o f th e o ffe n s e w e r e e s ta b lis h e d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le do ubt , v i e w i ng t he e vi de nc e i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he v e r di c ta ndN o. 07- 10451

5 d r a w in ga ll re a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e s fr o m th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e v e r d ic t.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Perc el , 5 5 3 F .3d 9 0 3 , 9 1 0 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o ta tion s o m itted ). The go ve r nm e ntpr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e t hatBueno knew he w as w o r ki ng w i t h dr ug traff i ck ers a n d tha t he fa l sely reg i stere d tw o ca rs th a t w ere n ot h i s, alon g w i th o t he re vi de nc e . Thi s e vi de nc e w as s uf f i c i e ntt o s upp o r thi s c o nvi c t i o n. 3
. Bueno f i nal l y o bj e c t s t hatt he j ur y hadin s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t hatBueno j oi n ed a c o ns pi r ac y. A c o nvi c t i o n f o rc o ns pi r ac y t o l aund e rm o ne y i n v i o l ati on of 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1956 (h ) requi res proof t h at “ ( 1) t h ere w as an agreem en tbetw een tw o or m ore p erso n s to lau n d er m on ey ; (2) th e d efen d a n t volu n taril y a gr ee d to jo in th e co n s p ir a c y ; a n d (3 ) o n e o f th e p e r s o n s co m m itt e d a n o v e r t a c t in furth era n ce of the con sp i ra cy . ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Ar m s t r o ng , 550 F. 3d 382, 403 ( 5t h C i r . 2008)
. B ueno e ss ent i a l l y as ks us t o b el i eve hi s st or y t hathe w as c oe r c ed i nt o dr ivi ng t he m oney i nst ead o f t he go ver nm ent ’ s ver si on t hathe w as a vol u n t ary pa rt i ci pa n t . W ei gh i n g t h e evi den ce i s a j ob f or t h e j u ry, not f

or us. W estv. Nab ors D ri l l i ng US A , I n c. , 3 3 0 F .3d 3 7 9 , 3 8 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). B
. B ueno al so ar gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our tfai l ed t o m ake adequat e f i ndi ngs t o sup po r tvar i o us s e nt e nc i ng e nhan c e m e nt s . Bec aus e he r ai s e s t hi s a r gum e nt fo rt h e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l, w e r e v ie w fo rp la in e r r o r . Perc el , 553 F. 3d at909. T h e P S R detai l ed th e en h an cem en t s and t h ei r basi s, an d the di st ri ctcourt ad o pt e d t he P SR w i t ho utany o bj e c t i o n f r o m Bueno
. Bec aus e “ i nf o r m at i o n i n t he [ PSR ] i s pr e s um e d r e l i ab l e a nd m ayb e adopt e d b y t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw i t ho ut f u rt h er i n qu i ry, ” t h e di st ri ctcou rtd i d n otn eed t o m ak e an y f u rt h er f i n di n gs or c o n d u c t fu r th e rin v e s tig a tio n . Uni t e d St at e s v . Car ba j al , 2 9 0 F
. 3 d 27 7 , 28 7 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). III. A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t isN o. 07- 10451

6 A F F I RMED.N o. 07- 10451

7 D eM O SS , C i r c ui tJudge, Spec i al l y Concurr i ng: I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. S an t os , 1 2 8 S
. C t . 2 0 2 0 , 2 0 2 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , t h e S u p r e me C our thel d tha t in a pro se c ut i on f orpr om ot i onalm oney l aunderi ng under 18 U
. S
. C
. § 1956 ( a) ( 1) , t h e governm e n tm u stprove t h at t h e “ proceeds” i n vol ved
w e r e t he “ pr o f

i t s ” o f unl awf ula c t ivi t y. I n t hi s c as e , w e m us tde t e r m i ne i f Fo r t i no C obain B u en o i s cri m i n al l y l i able u n der a on e- coun ti n di ct m en tf or c on spi racy t o com m i t§ 1956 ( a) ( 1) , w h ere he w as app rehen ded w h i l e t ran sport i n g over $1 30 , 00 0 o f

dr ug- de r ive d f

unds c r o s s - c o unt r y , b u tt he r e w as no e vi de nc e t hatt he c as h was pr o f

i t s o f a c o nt r o l l e d- s ubs t anc e s e nt e r pr i s e , no re vi de nc e t hatBueno k n ew the cas h w a s p rofi ts. O u r p rece d en t an d the plain -error ru l e ob l i ge u s to a n s w e rth is q u e s t io n in th e a ff ir m a t iv e . F o rt h is r e a s o n , I c o n c u ri n th e p a n e l’s di spo si t i on o f

t hi s appeal
. H ow eve r , I w r i t e se par at el y t o l odge m y co nce r n t hat ou r C i rcui t h as m i sapp l i ed Su prem e C ou rt preceden t at arrivi n g at t h i s s t ate of af fai r s. I t hi nk t he bet t er c our se w oul d be t o r eve r se and r em and f or a new t r i al t o deter m i n e w h et h er t h e m on ey h i dd en i n B u en o’ s car w as prof i t s, as opposed t o gross rec ei pts, of

drug

- rel ated act ivi t i es.

I. B u en o i s a garden er f rom C al i f

orni a. D rivi n g a H on da A ccor d cros scoun t ry, he w as stopped forsp eedi n g i n M i t chel lC ou n t y, T exas. H e consented t o a searc h of

t h e car; t h i s r evealed bun dl es of cash h i dd en i n th e car’ s pan el s. D u ri n g a vi deotaped i n t ervi ew w i t h pol i ce, B u en o, w h o i s i l l i t erat e an d d oes not sp eak E n gl i sh w el l , w ai ved hi s Mi r andar i ght s. H e s ai d he w entt o N orth Car o l i na t o b uy us e d c ar s , a nd whi l e stayi n g ata ho us e i n t he t o w n o f H o pe M i l l s, h e w a s i n stru cted to drive the H o n d a a n d h i d d en cas h f rom N orth C a r o lin a to C a lifo r n ia . B u e n o w a s p a id a r o u n d $ 2 0 0 0 . H e in s is te d th a t h e d id notw a n t t o dr ive t he m oney t o Cal i f or ni a, butfear ed t hathi s fam i l y w oul d be har m e d i f

he di d no t . Bueno kne w l i t t l e a bo utt he m e n who g av e hi m t hi s t as k. H ow ev er, h e inferre d tha t his ca rg o w a s “dru g m on ey . ” B u en o’ s statem en ts t oN o. 07- 10451

Ic anf in dnol an gu a geinth em o n eyl au n d e rin gs t atut ef ro mwhichthi sdef

inition 1 would have b eendrawn.

If ullyconcur inth e pan el’srea so nin gregardin gBu eno’ s oth erargu me nts . 2 8 l aw enf o r c e m en t for m e d t he b ul k o f t he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s c as e a ga i ns thi m . The govern m en t di d not present ad di t i on alevi den ce abou tt h e na t u re of t h e al l eged dru g t raf

f i cki n g operati on , t h e ori gi n of t h e cash, or B u en o’ s k n ow l edg e of
w h et h er t h e f

u n ds w ere gros s r ecei pts or prof i t s. T h e d istr ict co u rt in str u cte d th e j u ryth a t, forp u rp o se s o f § 1 9 5 6 (a )(1),

“ pr o c e e ds ” m e ans “ pr o pe r t y t hats o m e o ne a c qui r e s o rr e t ai ns a s a r e s ul to f t he
com m i ssi on of

t h e un derl yi n g speci f i ed u n l aw f

u lact ivi t y. ” B u en o di d n otobj ect

1 t o t h i s i n st ructi on , a n d t h e j u ry f ou n d h i m gu i l t y. B u en o al so f i l ed a m ot i on f

or acqu i t t alun der F ED . R. C R IM . P. 29, on the basi s t h at t h e evi den ce di d n ot e s t ab l i s h t he essen t i ale l e m e nt s o f t he o f fe ns e . Bueno di d no tha ve t he
c l ai r voy ance t o a r gue i n hi s R ul e 2 9 m ot i on thatthe gov er nm entfai l ed t o pr ove t h e m on ey w as t h e prof i t s of a dru go p e ra t i on , as opposed t o gross rec ei pts, becau se t h e S an t os deci si on h ad not t h en been ha n ded dow n . T h e courtden i ed t he m o t i o n, a nd Bue no a ppe al e d. II. B u en o’ s st rongest argu m en t s ari se un der S an t os , w h i ch w as deci ded af t er B u en o’ s t ri al , bu tbef ore bri ef

i n g i n t h i s app eal
. B u en o argu es t h at i n l i gh tof 2 S an t os , the ev i d en ce p rese n ted ag a i n st h i m at tri a li s i n su ff i ci en t to su p p ort a con victi on f

or m on eyl a u n d erin g. N ev erth eless, ow i n g to B u en o’ s fa i l u re to an t i ci pa t e an d rai se S an t os- based argu m en t s bef o r e t h e di st ri ctcourt , w e revi ew o n l y fo r p la in e r r o r . F ED . R. C RIM . P . 5 2 (b ); Joh n son v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 20 U
. S. 4 6 1 , 4 6 6 (1 9 9 7 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R i os- Q u i n t ero , 204 F
. 3d 214 , 215 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). B u e n o m u s t s h o w (1 ) e r r o r , (2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) t h a t a ffe c te d h is
s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . Joh n son , 5 2 0 U. S
. a t 4 6 6

- 6 7
. I f t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e me t , we m aye xe r c i s e o urdi s c r e t i o n t o c o r r e c tt he e r r o ri f i t“s e r i o us l y af

fe c t [ s ] t heN o. 07- 10451

Ju stice Thomas di d not j ointh e portionof the plur ality opinionwhich discussed stare 3 dec is isan d Ju stice Stevens’s opinion
. 9 fai rn ess , i n teg r ity , o r pu b l i c rep u tati on of j u d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs . ” I d. a t4 6 7
. To d e t e r mi n e w h e t h e ra n e r r o ri s p l a i n , w e e x a mi n e t h e s t a t e o f t h e l a w a tt h e t i me o f a p p e a l. Se ei d. a t 4 6 8 ; seealso G r if f i t h v. K e nt ucky , 479 U
. S. 314, 328 ( 1987) ( “ [A ] new rul e f

or t h e condu ctof

cr i m i n alprosecuti on s i s t o be app l i ed
r e t r o ac t ive l y t o a l lc as e s . . . p en di n g o n di r e c tr e vi e w o rno ty e tf i nal , w i t h no e xc e pt i o n f

o rc as e s i n whi c h t he new ru l e cons t i t ut e s a ‘ c l e arb r e ak ’w i t h t he pa st . ” )
. T h i s r u l e i s part i cul arl y sal i en t t o B u e n o ’ s c ase, becau se S an t os i s a w a tersh ed ch a n ge of l a w bythe S u p rem e C ou rt. A. I n S an t os , t h e S u p r e m e Co u r th e l d t h a tt h e t e r m “ p r o c e e d s ” i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 195 6( a) ( 1) i s am bi gu ou s, becau se i tcan ei t h er m ean gross rec ei pts or prof i t s. 128 S. C t . at 202 5. T h e C ou rt i n vok ed t h e rul e of l en i t y an d h el d that t h e m ore r e s tr ic tiv e , d e fe n d a n t-f r ie n d lyd e fin itio n a p p lie s , i
. e. , p r o fits
. I d. C ons equent l y, th e C o u r t v a c a te d p e tit io n e rS a n to s ’ s c o n v ic tio n , w h ic h S a n to s h a d co lla te r a lly
a tt a c k e d v ia a h a b e a s co r p u s p e tit io n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5
. I d. at2023. W hi l e t he Cour t ’ s di s po s i t i o n i s e as i l y s um m ar i z e d, i t s vo t e w as f r ac t ur e d, gi vi n g l ow er c ou rt s s can tgu i da n ce f or f u t u re app l i cat i on s. Ju st i ce Scal i a, j oi n ed by Ju st i ces S ou t er, T h om as, an d G i n sbu rg, bel i eved t h at t h e governm en tm u st pr o ve i n any pr o m o t i o nalm o ne y l aund e r i ng pr o s e c ut i o n ( 1) t hatt he de fe nda nt c o nduc t e d at r ans ac t i o n wi t h “ pr o f i t s , ” a nd ( 2) t hatt he de fen da n tkne w t he tr a n s a c tio n in v o lv e d p r o fits o f u n la w fu l a c tiv ity
. I d. a t 2 0 2 9 . J u s tic e S c a lia
e m p h a s iz ed th a t th e sam e st a tu tory term m u st b e give n th e sam e m ea n i n g in al lc as e s ; t he de f

i ni t i o n o f

t he t e r m c anno tb e nd a c c o r di ng t o t he fac t s pr e s e nt e d. I d. at 2030 (c i t i ng C lark v. Mart i n ez , 54 3 U
. S. 37 1, 37 8 ( 20 05 ) )
. J us t i c e St e ve ns 3
r e a s o n e d th a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t n e e d o n lyp r o v e th e m o r e p r o s e c u t i o n - f r ie n d ly “gro ss rece i p ts” d e fin iti on i f l eg i slative h i storysh ow ed con gr ess i on a li n ten t t oN o. 07- 10451

C on gr es s ha s since a mended the statut e. E ffective May 20, 200 9, § 19 56(c)(9) now 4 reads: “theter m ‘proceeds’ mean s any property derived fro m or obtaine d orret ained, directly or indirectly, t hr ou gh some form of unlawfulactivity , inclu ding th e gross receipts of such activity.” Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2 009 , Pub. L. 111 -21, § 2 (f)(1)(B), 123Stat. 161 7, 161 8 (200 9). Th e bill is silent on retro activity; therefore , it only applies tocon duct which occursp os t- a me n dm ent. See Lan dgraf v. USI F ilm Prods. , 5 1 1 U .S
. 2 4 4 , 2 8 0( 1 9 9 4). 10 cov er su ch l a u n d erin g activity, sp ecif i ca l l y i n the con troll ed su b stan ces co n tex t. I d. at 203 1- 32 & n. 3. Ju st i ce A l i t o, j oi n ed by C h i ef J u st i ce R obert s and Ju st i ces K e nne dya nd Br e ye r , w o ul d ha ve he l d t hat“ pr o c e e ds ” i s una m bi guo us a nd
m e a n s “g r o s s re c e ip ts ” fo ra ll p r o s e c u tio n s u n d e r§ 1 9 5 6 (a )(1 ). I d. at2036. B. In th e a fter m a th of S an t os , t h i s C ou rtha s s t rugg l ed t o def i n e “ proceeds” i n m on ey l au n deri n g prosecuti on s w h ere the u n derl yi n g u n l aw f u lcondu cti s a c o n tr o lle d s u b stan ces o ffe n s e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. F ernan d ez , 559 F. 3d 303, 316- 1 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); Un i t e dS t a t e s v . B r o wn , 5 5 3 F .3d 7 6 8 , 7 8 3 -8 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ),
cer t . den i ed sub nom . Com bs v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 8 1 2 (2 0 0 9 ), s u b n o m. B row n v. Un i t ed S t ate s , - - - S. C t . - - - , N o. 09-5316 (O ct . 5, 200 9)
. T h e Br o wn 4 p a n e l re a s o n e d th a t w h ile J u s tic e S te v e n s a n d t h e fo u rd is s e n te r s m ig h t a p p ly t h e “ gross recei pts” def i n i t i on i n t h e contr ol l ed su bstanc e s c on t ext, i ti s al so possibl e t h at one of

t h e di ssenti n g j u st i ces w ou l d j oi n t h e S an t os pl ural i t y s o a s t o achi eve a consi st en tdef i n i t i on of

“ proce e d s” f

or al lprosecuti on s un der § 19 56 ( a) ( 1)
. 5 53 F. 3da t7 84
. I n Bro wn , t h e pan eldi d n otneed t o deci de w h i ch defi n i t i on app l i es because the govern m en tp re sented “ am pl e, un cha l l en ged
e v id e n c e ” t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n ts ’illicit s a le s o f p a in k ille r s w e r e p r o fita b le
. I d. M oreover, “ [ m ] u ch of t h e prof

i t s f rom t h ese s al es w as dep osi t ed i n t o ph arm acy ban k accou n t s i n cash, accoun t s f rom w h i ch the m on ey u sed i n t h e charged tran sa cti on s w a s d ra w n . ” I d. A s f or erroneou s j u ry i n st ructi on s (w h i ch ref l ect ed t h e l aw pre- S an t os ) , t h e Bro wn op i n i on furt h er c om m en t ed that t h e defen da n t s’N o. 07- 10451

11 fai l u re to ob j ect, co u p l ed w i th th e u n settl ed state of the l a w po st- S an t os , m e ant th a t t h e d e fe n d a n ts co u ld n o t m e e t t h e p la in -e r r o rs ta n d a r d
. I d. at785. I n F ernan d ez , a not h er p an elo f t hi s Cour tt o o k as i m i l arv i e w o f t he

“ pl ai n n ess” of

t h e err or of

fai l i n g t o present evi den ce orgive a j u ry i n st ructi on w h i ch confor m s t o t h e def i n i t i on of

“ proceeds” u n der S an t os : Jus t i c e St e ve ns ’ s c o m m e ntt hatg r o s s r e ve nue s w e r e t he r e l e va nt proceeds app l i es t o th e s a l e of contr aba n d an d the operati on of cri m i n alorgan i zati on s, preci sel y t h e t yp e of of fen ses f

or w h i ch F ern a n d ez w a s con victed
. W h i l e J u sti ce S tev en s an d the plu ra l i ty di s ag r e e d o ve rt he pr e c i s e pr e c e de nt i alef fe c tof hi s s t at e m e nt , t he
u n c e r ta in tyre n d e r s a n ye r r o rh e r e n o t “ p la in .” 55 9 F. 3da t3 16
. I n o t he rw o r ds , t he Supr e m e Cour tg av e a n a m bi guo us in te r p r e ta tio n to a n a m b ig u o u s s ta tu te . T h u s , F ernan d ezs t a n d s f

ort hat proposi t i on t h at, w h i l e st atutor y am bi gu i t y fa v o rs th e accused per the rul e of l e ni t y, a m bi gui t y i n s ubs e que ntc as e l aw pr e ve nt s t he c o nvi c t e d f r o m s ho w i ng p la in e r r o r . I fin d th is n o n s e n s ic a l. The pa ne li n Fe rna n d ez , pe r hap s unc o nvi nc e d t hatt he e r r o rw as no tpl ai n, al so r eason ed that Fern an dez’ s s u bstanti alri gh t s w ere un af fect ed. F erna n dez
w as convi ct ed of

§ 1 956 ( a) ( 1) ( B ) (i) an d (i i) , “ w h i ch proh ibi tt ran sact i on s desi gn ed t o ‘ c onc ealordi sg ui se ’t he o r i gi ns o r l oc at i on of t he pro c ee ds of i l l egalac t ivi t y, or to a vo i d l eg a lrep ortingreq u i rem en ts. ” I d. at317. Li ke Bu eno, S a n to s w as c onvi c t ed o f

§ 1956( a) ( 1 )(A ) (i) , w hi c h “ pro hibi t s c onduct i ng a f i nanci al t r ans ac t i o n wi t h t he pr o c e e ds o f i l l e ga l ac t ivi t y ‘ w i t h t he i nt e ntt o pr o m o t e t he
ca rry i n g o n of’ad d i ti on a li l l eg a l activi ty. ” I d. at316. Th us, Fer nandez w as convic t ed of

a di f ferent s u bsect i on of

t h e m on ey l au n deri n g st atute. M ore over, th e g ov e r n m en t pre sen ted ev i d en ce th a t F ern a n d ez u sed l a u n d ere d f u n d s to pu rchase asset s un rel ated t o t h e contr ol l ed su bstances act ivi t y i n “a st ri n g ofN o. 07- 10451

12 t ran sac t i o ns o ve ra pe r i o d o f f i f t e e n y e ar s i nvo l vi ng r e ale s t at e , ho r s e s , a nd
m u l ti p l e sh ellcorp ora ti on s. ” Id
. a t 3 1 7
. A f ort i ori , su c h fu n d s w e r e in fe r e n tia lly p r o fits o f th e d r u gtr a ffic k in gco n s p ir a c y . C. I di s ag r e e w i t h t he na r r o w r e ad i ng o urCour tha s g ive n S an t os i n t he
c o nt r o l l e d s ubs t anc e s c o nt e xti n Bro wn a nd F ernan d ez . I a ls o b e lie v e th a t t h is
c a s e i s fa c t u a l l yd i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Bro wn a nd F

ernan d ez , a n d t h a tu n d e rmy re a d in gof S an t os , B u e n o ca n s h o w p la in e r r o r . I r e c o g n iz e t h a t, a r g u a b ly , Bro wn and Fe r nande zc a n be i n t erpret ed to controlour deci si on i n t h i s c ase. N e ve r t he l e s s , I w i l le xp l ai n m y r e as o ni ng he r e i n. In m ym in d , S an t os b rough ta bou ta substanti alchan ge i n t h e m ean i n g of th e fed era lm on eyl a u n d erin g sta tu te. Itsee m s to m e th a t S an t os s t and s f o rt he pr o po s i t i o n t hatt he t e r m “ pr o c e e ds ” i n § 1 95 6 i s a m bi guo us . T he r e f o r e , o ur i nt e r pr e t at i o n m us tb e g ui ded by t h e rul e o f l e ni t y i n a l lm o ne y l aund e r i ng p r o s e c u tio n s . A s J u s tic e S c a lia s a id , S an t os d id n o t set t l e t h e sta re d ec isis q u e s tio n o n e w a yo ra n o th e r . I d. at 203 1 ( “ ‘ [ P ] roceeds’m ean s ‘ prof i t s’w h en t h ere i s n o legisl a tive h i storyto t h e con trary . T h a t i s alltha t ou r j u d gm en t ho l d s. It does n othol d that the ou t com e is d i f ferent w h en con t rary l egi sl ative h i st ory does exi st . ” )
. I do n otsee i tf i tt o coun tSu prem e C ou rtvot es i n a t h eoret i calm on ey l au n deri n g case w h ere t h e un derl yi n g of fen se i s a c on t rol l ed su bstances violati on . In l i gh t of

the u n certa i n ty reign i n g p ost- S an t os , I w o ul d g r antBueno t h e ben ef

i t of a very consi derab l e dou bt, an d h ol d that t h e rul e of l en i t y obl i ges u s t o def

i n e “ proceeds” as “ prof i t s” i n t h i s c ase. T h ere i s evidence t h at t h e cash
w as dr ug m o ne y— Bueno ’ s s t at e m e nt s a nd a dm i s s i o ns e s t abli sh t hi s b e yo nd p er advent ure . H ow eve r , t her e i s no e vi denc e w hat so eve rt hatt he m oney w as prof i t s, nor t h at B u en o, a low

- l evelb agm an , k n ew tha tt h e m on ey represented dru g- t raf

f i cki n g prof

i t s. B u en o w as app aren t l y kep ti n t he dark abou tt h e na t u re of t he o r gani zat i on he s er ved and t he f und s he del iver ed; he w as onl y t ol d t hatN o. 07- 10451

S anto s’ s convictionwa s aff ir me d on direct app eal to th e SeventhC ircuit ; th e Suprem e 5 Court then denied his petition for a writ of certior ari. A subsequent Seve nthC ircuit decision hel d th at “procee ds” un der § 1 956actuallymeans “profits.” See United States v. Scialab ba , 28 2 13 h e w a s t o drive ove r $130, 000 f r om poi nt A ( N or t h C ar ol i na) t o poi n t B (C a li for n ia ). W e ju d g e e r r o ra t t h e tim e o f a p p e a l. S ee Joh n son , 520 U
. S
. at 468
. T h u s, I w oul d hol d th a t t he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n fai l i ng t o i nst r uctt he j ury t hat “pro cee d s” m ea n s “pro fi ts, ” a s op p ose d to p rop ertyde rive d f rom cri m i n a lactivi ty (i .e ., g r o s s r e c e ip t s ). G iv e n th e a b s e n c e o f e v id e n c e o f p r o fi t s , o rB u e n o ’s kn ow l edg e t h ereof, t h e court l i kew i se erred i n fai l i n g t o gran tB u en o’ s m ot i on f or ju d g m e n t o f a c q u itt a l. T h e d iffe r e n c e b e tw e e n “p r o fits ” a n d “g r o s s re c e ip ts ” is o b v io u s ; th e s e e r r o r s w e r e p la in . I r e c o g n iz e th a t t h is co n c lu s io n a r g u a b ly
c o nf l i c t s w i t h Bro wn a nd F ernan d ez . S ee5 53 F. 3da t7 85 ; 5 59 F. 3da t3 16
. O ur r ul e o f o r de r l i ne s s pr e ve nt s t hi s pa ne lf r o m o ve r r ul i ng a pr i o rde c i s i o n; th e r e fo r e , I r e lu c ta n tlyco n c u rin th e p a n e l’ s re s u lt. S ee Un i t e d St at e s v . D i al , 5 4 2 F .3d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 6 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). In m y vi ew , th e err or af fect ed B u en o’ s s u bstanti alri gh t s. A s di scussed abov e, t her e i s si m pl y no evi denc e t hat t he m oney i n B ueno’ s c arw as pr of i t s, as opp osed t o gross rec ei pts. T h i s sets this case ap artfact u al l y f rom ei t h er Br o wn or F ernan d ez ; i n bot h of t hos e c as es , the gov er nm entpr es ent ed e xt ens ive evi den ce of t h e prof

i t abil i t y of

t h e res pective control l ed-s u bstances act ivi t i es. F i n al l y, I b e l i e ve t hatw e s ho ul d e xe r c i s e o urdi s c r e t i o n t o c o r r e c tt he e r ror, becau se i t“ seri ou sl y af fect [ s] t h e fai rness, i n t e g rity, or pu bl i c r epu t ati on of j u d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs . ” S ee Joh n son , 520 U
. S. at467. I tbear s em phasi zi ng t hat th e g u lf b e tw e e n th e e le m e n ts o f § 1 9 5 6 (a )(1 ) a n d th e p r o o f a d d u c e d a t t r ia l is
va s t . M o r e o ve r , t he Supr e m e Cour ts aw i tf i ti n S an t os to vacat e o n co l l at er al
r e v ie w a co n v ic tio n w h i c h h a d b e e n fin a l fo rn e a r lyad e c a d e . S ee128 S. C t . at 2 0 2 3
. Its ta n d s to re a s o n th a t if th e S u p r e m e C o u r t s a w itf it to a p p lyth e ru le 5N o. 07- 10451

F .3 d 4 7 5 , 4 7 7 -7 8( 7thC ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). Scialab bawas amoneylaunderin g conviction where the underlying

offe nse was runningan unl awful ga mblingbu sine ss, but its rea soningapp lie s to drug -related activitie s as well: “Likewise, one would suppose, the ‘proce eds’ of dru g dealing are the profits of th at activity (the sums avail able for investment outsi de drugmarket s), the net yield rath er thanth e gross receipts that must be used to b uyinve ntory and paythe wages of couri ers.” Id
. at47 7. S antos sou ght toset aside his conviction vi a awrit of h abe as corpus under 2 8 U .S.C. § 225 5. Th e district court granted relief and the SeventhC ircuit affirme d, as di d th e Suprem e C ourt . See 128S. Ct. at 202 3. 14 of l en i ty a n d to va ca te S a n tos’ s l on g-fi n a lco n victi on , w e sh ou l d n ot h esitate to gr antre l i e f

on di r e c tappe al
. I f

I c o ul d, I w o ul d v ac at e t he c o nvi c t i o n a nd r e m and to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo rre tr ia l.