08-4737-cr United States v. Ingram 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1 

### FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 2 3 

### SUMMARY ORDER 4 5 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A 6 SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY 7 FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1. WHEN 8 CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE 9 EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION 10 “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY 11 PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 12 13 

### At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 14 

### the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New 15 

### York, on the 21 st 

### day of October, two thousand ten. 16 17 

### PRESENT: WILFRED FEINBERG, 18 

### JON O. NEWMAN, 19 

### GERARD E. LYNCH, 20 

### Circuit Judges. 21



### ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22 23 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 24 

### Appellee , 25 26 

### v. No. 08-4737-cr 27 28 

### MARK V. INGRAM, 29 

### Defendant-Appellant. 30 31



### ----------------------------------------------------------------- --- 32 33 

### FOR APPELLANT: Mark V. Ingram, pro se , Brooklyn, New York. 34 35 

### FOR APPELLEE: Emily Berger, Richard P. Donoghue, Assistant United States 36 

### Attorneys for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney, 37 

### Eastern District of New York. 38 39 

### Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 40 

### (Denis R. Hurley, Senior Judge). 411

### Appellant also pled guilty to a money laundering charge in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, contained in a separate information brought in the Eastern District of New York, for which he received a concurrent sentence. He does not appeal the resulting judgment of conviction on that count.

2 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 1 

### DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2 

### Appellant Mark V. Ingram pled guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 3 

### U.S.C. § 1344 and one count of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. 1

### He 4 

### now appeals pro sefrom his resulting conviction and sentence, arguing that the district 5 

### court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because the indictment did not allege that the 6 

### crimes charged were committed on federal land or that they affected interstate commerce. 7 

### These arguments are frivolous. 8 

### To the extent appellant challenges the judicial jurisdiction of the court to 9 

### adjudicate these charges, his argument fails because Article III of the Constitution vests in 10 

### the federal courts the power to adjudicate “all cases . . . arising under . . . the laws of the 11 

### United States,” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, and Congress has conferred on the federal district 12 

### courts “original jurisdiction . . . of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 13 

### U.S.C. § 3231. The indictments here charged violations of federal criminal statutes, and 14 

### thus brought the cases within the jurisdiction of the United States courts. 15 

### To the extent appellant seeks to challenge the facial validity of the indictment, or 16 

### the constitutionality of the acts of Congress he admitted to violating, such challenges are 17 

### non-jurisdictional and are thus waived by his guilty plea. United States v. Lasaga, 328 18 

### F.3d 61, 64 (2d Cir. 2003); Hayle v. United States , 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir. 1987). 193 

### Appellant’s effort to cast such objections as “jurisdictional” is unavailing. 1 

### However, even if we were to accept appellant’s characterization of his arguments as 2 

### “jurisdictional” insofar as they question the legislative jurisdiction of Congress to adopt 3 

### such statutes, his contentions patently lack merit. As appellant’s own arguments 4 

### implicitly acknowledge, Congress’s power is not limited to punishing crimes within the 5 

### territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the United States as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7. 6 

### Rather, Congress may enact criminal legislation in furtherance of any of the powers 7 

### conferred on it by the Constitution, including the power to regulate interstate and foreign 8 

### commerce. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; seeUnited States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995). 9 

### The power to prohibit money laundering is within that power, United States v. Goodwin, 10 

### 141 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 1997), as is the power to protect the financial integrity of 11 

### federally-insured financial institutions, United States v. Stavroulakis , 952 F.2d 686, 694 12 

### (2d Cir. 1992). Where Congress has enacted a valid criminal statute, an indictment is 13 

### valid if it generally tracks the language of the statute, and states the approximate time and 14 

### place of the commission of the offense, United States v. LaSpina, 299 F.3d 165, 177 (2d 15 

### Cir. 2002); there is no separate or special requirement that the interstate commerce basis 16 

### of the statute be alleged. The indictment here satisfied that standard. Indeed, with respect 17 

### to the money laundering counts, the charging instrument here did specifically allege an 18 

### effect on interstate commerce, and thus satisfies even the standard erroneously advocated 19 

### by appellant. 204 

### For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. 1



### FOR THE COURT: 2 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 3

4

5