Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51160 Su m m ar yC al endar

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. A N D R E W M A X W E L L P A R K E R , 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 th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C R

- 292- 1

B e fo r e J O L LY , W IE N E R , a n dE L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * A ndre w M axw ellParkerpl eade d gui l t y t o c ount s 1, 3, 4, 5, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, an d 28 of

an i n di ct m en tch argi n g h i m w i t h con spi racy, w i re f rau d, m on ey l aund e r i ng, t axe va s i o n, f i l i ng a fal s e i nc o m e t axr e t ur n, a nd a i di ng anda be t t i ng related to va ri ou s f

ra u d u l en t l oa n s gu a ra n te edbythe U n i tedS tates E xp ortI m por tB ank ( E x- I m B ank)

. I n t hi s appeal , Parkerc ont ends t hathi s gui l t y pl eas t o t h e conspi racy, w i re f rau d, an d m on ey l au n deri n g cou n t s s h ou l d be va cat ed t he fac t ualb as e s for h i s pl e as fail e d t o e s t ab l i s h e s s e nt i ale l e m e nt s o f t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April9, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-51160 Document: 00511075397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 51160

2 o f fe nses. U n der F ED . R. C RIM . P. 1 1 (b)( 3 ), the distri ct cou rt i s req u i red to de t e r m i ne t hatt he r e i s afac t ualb as i s f o rapl e a. “The fac t ualb as i s f o rt he gu i l t y pl ea m u st ap pea r i n t h e recor d and m u st be suff i ci en t l y speci f

i c t o al l ow t he c our tt o de t er m i ne thatthe def endant ’ s c onductw as w i t hi n t he am bi tof t hat d efi n edas crim i n a l
. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Cas t ro - Tr e v i no , 46 4 F
. 3 d 5 3 6 , 54 0 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tion m a rk s a n dellips is o m itted ). Par ke rc o nc e des t h att hi s c o ur t ’ s r e vi e w i s f o rpl ai n e r r o rb e c aus e no ob j ectionw a s l od ge di n the distri ct cou rt. Se ei d at541
. To sh ow pl ai n err or, P a r k e rm u s t s h o w afo r fe ite de r r o rth a t is cle a ro ro b v io u s a n dt h a t a ffe c ts h is
s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts
. P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 129 S. C t
. 142 3, 1 42 9 ( 20 09 )

. I f he
m a k e s s u c h as h o w in g , th is co u r t h a s th e d is c r e tio n to co r r e c t t h e e r r o rb u t o n ly i f i ts er i ous l y af

fec t s t he fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y, orpu b l i cr eput at i on o f j udi c i al proceedi n gs. Id
. Par ke r “ ‘ m us t s ho w a r e as o nab l e pr o ba bil i t y t hat , but f o rt he
erro r, h e w ou l dn ot h a ve en tered the plea
. ’” Cas t ro - Tr e v i no , 464 F
. 3 d a t541 ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. D om i ngu ez B enit ez , 5 4 2 U .S

. 7 4 , 7 6 (20 0 4 )). Cons pi r acyc o unt U n der 18 U
. S

. C

. § 371 , itis u n l aw f u lfortw o or m ore persons t o “ conspir e ei t h er t o com m i t an y of fen se agai n stt h e U n i t ed S t ates, or t o def rau d the U n i t ed St at e s , o rany ag e nc y t he r e o f i n a ny m anne ro rf

o ra ny pur po s e . ” “The de f r aud cl a u se o f § 3 7 1 rea ch es both a con sp i ra cy to ch ea t th e gov ern m en t ou t of pro p erty
o r m o ne y and any c o ns pir ac y de s i gne d t o i m pa i r , o bs t r uc t , o rde fe att he l awf ul fun cti on of a n y d ep a rtm en t of the go ve rn m en t. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. C lark , 139 F. 3d 485, 488- 89 ( 5t h C i r . 1998)

. A t leas tone of t he c ons pi r at or s m usthave
c o m m itt e da n o v e r t a c t in fu r th e r a n c e o f th e o bje c tiv e s o f th e c o n s p ir a c y . I d. at 4 8 9
. P arker contend s t h at he shou l d be perm i t t ed t o w i t h draw h i s gu i l t y pl ea t o the c ons pi r ac y c ountbe c ause t he all egat i on s i n the i ndi c t m ent , t he fac t ual ba s i s f o rt he pl e a ag r e e m e nt , and t he pl e a c o l l o quy do no tde m o ns t r at e t hathe
en t ered i n t o a conspir ator i al agreem en t w i t h ot h ers t o com m i t of fen ses aga i n st Case: 08-51160 Document: 00511075397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 51160

3 t he U ni t ed Stat es or t o de f r aud t he E x- I m B ank. Al t hough P ar kerc onc ede s t hat t h e i n di ct m en tal l egedt h at he conspi red w i t h ot h ers, he argu es t h at “t h e rec ord i s dev oi d of an y i n f orm ati on as t o w h om t h ese ‘ ot h ers’ m igh t be— w h et h er e m p lo y e e s o f le n d e rb a n k s , e m p lo y e e s a tt h e E x - Im B a n k , o rh is e m p lo y e e s .” P a rk er co m p l a i n s th a t th e rec ord do es n ot “pro vid e a n y in form a tio n a s to
w h et h er itw as M r. P arker— or oth ers— w h o e n gag ed i n t h e condu ctdescribed i n t he ‘M anne ra nd M e ans ’s e c t i o n” o f t he con spi r ac y c o unt
. Pa r ke rc o nt e nds t h at it c a n n otbe deter m i n ed w h et h er he persona l l y en gag ed i n t h e condu ctor w he t he rhe w as m e r e l y r e s po ns ibl e fo rt he co nduc tof o t he r s . Pa r ke rc o nt e nds th a t “ th e re c o r dfa ils to s h o w w h a t fa c ts s u p p o r t a fin d in gth a t [h e ] e n g a g e din
aco n s p ir a to r ia l a g r e e m e n t, o rw h e th e r h e w a s , in s o m e m a n n e r , a c tin ga lo n e .” T h e s e co n te n tio n s a r e w ith o u t m e r it. P r o o f o f th e id e n tit y o f th e c o -c o n s p ir a to r s w a s n o t n e c e s s a r y . S ee R ogers v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 4 0 U .S . 3 6 7 , 3 7 5 (1 9 5 1 ); Un itedS ta tes v . L ew is , 902 F. 2d 1176, 118 1 n . 4 ( 5t h C i r . 1990)

. I n t hi s c as e, one c o- c ons pi r at or , V i c t orG ar at e, w as speci f i cal l y i den t i f

i ed i n t h e fact u al b a si s f or th e gu i l t y pl ea, an d P arker adm i t t ed thathe w i r ed f r audul ent l y o bt ai ned f und s i nt o acc ount s c ont r oll ed by G ar at e a nd t hatG ar at e he l ped Parke rto l a u n dert hos e f und s. W e have
r e vi e w e d the i ndi c t m e nt , t he fac t ual ba s i s f o rt he g ui l t y pl e a, a nd the t r ans c r i pt of t h e rearr ai gn m en thea ri n g an d h ave f ou n d an abu n da n ce of fact u alsup port i n the reco rdf

or th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s ac cep tan ce of P a rk er’ s gu i l ty p l ea to
c o ns pir i ng w i t h o t he r s t o de f r audt he U ni t e d St at e s a nd t o com m i tw i r e f r aud
a n dm o n e yla u n d e r in g . N o e r r o ris a p p a r e n t, p la in o ro th e r w is e . S eeP u ck ett , 1 2 9 S . C t. a t 1 4 2 9 ; Cas t ro - Tr e v i no , 4 6 4 F .3 da t 5 4 0 -4 1
. Wirefra u dco u n ts Parkerc ont ends t hathe s houl d be per m i t t ed t o w i t hdraw hi s gui l t y pl eas t o t he w i r e f

r audc o unt s (c o unt s 3 , 4 , a nd 5) bec aus e t he a l l e ga t i o ns i n t he i n di ct m en t , t h e fact u albasi s f or th e pl ea agreem en t , an d the pl ea col l oqu y do n ot dem on st rat e t h at h e en gag ed i n a sc h em e t o def rau d an d that he u sed or c au sed Case: 08-51160 Document: 00511075397 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 51160

4 t h e use of

w i re c om m u n i ca tion s in f u rt h eran ce of

such a sc h em e. Pa rker
c o m pl ai ns t hatt he “w i r e f r audc o unt s s uf

fe rf r o m t he s am e l ac k o f de t ail i n t he pa rt i cul ars as di scussed” i n conn ect i on w i t h t h e conspi racy coun t
. Pa rker
c ont ends t hat t he ques t i on w het her Parker devi se d a sc hem e t o de f r aud t he E xI m B ank cannotbe det er m i ned bas ed o n t he r ec or d. Parke r c ont ends al sot hat t he r ec or d s how s “ no m or e t han t hath e co nver t ed l oan proc ee ds w i r ed t o hi m by l en di n g i n st i t u t i on s” an d that “broadan d vagu e assert i on s i n C ou n t I” w ere not
su ff i ci en t su p p ort a fi n d i n g th a t he “de v is e d a s ch em e to d efrau dthe E x-Im B a n k .” T h e s e co n te n tio n s a r e w ith o u t m e r it.

“ T o prove w i re f

rau d p u rsuan tt o 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 134 3, t h e governm en tm u st prove ( 1) a sc h e m e to d e fra u d an d ( 2) t h e use of, or cau si n g t h e use of, w i re com m u n i ca ti on s i n f u rth era n ce of the sch em e.” Uni t e d St at e s v . G r ay , 96 F. 3d 769 , 773 ( 5th C i r. 199 6)

. “ [ F ] or purp oses of t h e federalfr au d st atutes, t h e t erm

‘ s c he m e t o de f

r aud ’i s no tr e ad i l y de f i ne d, b uti ti nc l ude s a ny fal s e o rf r aud ul e nt p r e te n s e s o rre p r e s e n ta t io n s in te n d e dto d e c e iv e o th e r s ino r d e rto o b ta in
som eth i n g o f va l u e, su ch as m on ey . ” Un itedS ta tes v. Ca ld w ell , 3 0 2 F
. 3d 399, 4 1 4 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 2 ) (qu ota ti on m a rk s an dbra ck ets om i tted). “T h e req u i sit e i nt e ntt o def

r audi s es t ab l i s he d i f t he def e nda ntac t e d k no w i ngly andw i t h t he spe c i f i c in ten tt o de c eive, or di naril y f ort he purpo seof

c ausi ng s om e f

i nanci al l oss to an oth er orbrin gin g ab ou t som e f i n a n ci a lga i n to h i m self

. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Saks , 9 6 4 F .2 d1 5 1 4 , 1 5 1 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). Th e r e c o r ds u p p o r t s t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , i n a c c e pt i ng P arker’ s gui l t y pl eas t o coun t s 3, 4, an d 5, t h at Pa rker ha d en gag ed i n sc h em es t o def rau d i n volvi n g t h e use of w i re c om m u n i cat i on s by causi n g f u n ds gen erat ed b yth r e e s h a m t r a n s a c tio n s to b e w ir e din to h is b a n ka c c o u n t. S ee § 1 3 4 3 ; G r ay , 96 F
. 3da t7 73. T h e record su pp ort s the di st ri ctcou rt ’ s con cl u si on tha tP arker
en gag ed i n a sc h em e t o def rau d bykn ow i n gl y u si n g fal se orf rau du l en tpret en ses orr epr es ent at i ons t o de c eive ot her s i n or dert o o bt ai n t he w i r ed f und s, and t hat h e a id e da n da b e tt e do th e r s ind o in gs o . S ee Ca ld w ell , 3 02 F. 3da t4 14
. The Case: 08-51160 Document: 00511075397 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 51160

5 di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a c c e pt anc e o f t he g ui l t y pl e as w i t h r e s pe c tt o t he w i r e f r aud
c o u n ts d idn o t in v o lv e re v e r s ib le p la in e r r o r . S eeP u ck ett , 129 S. C t
. at1429. Mo n ey la u n d er ingco u n ts Parkerc ont ends t hathe s houl d be per m i t t ed t o w i t hdraw hi s gui l t y pl eas t o t he m o ne y l aund e r i ng c o unt s (c o unt s 19 , 21 , a nd 2 2) b e c aus e t he a l l e ga t i o ns i n t he i ndi c t m e nt , t he fac t ualb as i s f o rt he pl e a ag r e e m e nt , and t he pl e a c o l l o quy d o n ot d em on strate tha t f u n d s p a i dou t of

ba n k a ccou n ts con troll edbyG a ra te
w er e c r i m i nal l y de r ived f r om t he c ons pi r ac y a n d w i r e f r aud sc hem es and t hat hi s r el at i ons hi p t o t hos e ac c ount s w as notes t abl i she d. Parke rc om pl ai ns that t h e fact s i n t h e r e co rd u n derl yi n g h i s gui l t y pl eas t o m on ey l au n deri n g l ack suff i ci en tdetai lw i t h res pect t o G arate’ s r ol e. A s t o cou n ts 2 1 a n d 2 2, P arker
a r g u e s th a t t h e re c o r dd o e s n o t r e fl e c tth a t P a r k e rtr a n s fe r r e dcr im in a lly de r ive d f

unds i nt o G ar at e ’ s ac c o unt and t hat he us e d t ho s e f unds t o c o m pl e t e t he
m onet ar y t r ansac t i ons i nvolved i n t hos e co unts
. A l t hough Parkerc onc ede s t hat t he fac t ualb as i s r e c i t es that h e kne w t hatm o r e t han $1 0, 00 0 o f f unds t r ansf er r ed w er e de r ived f

r om t he c ons pir ac y w i r e f r aud sc hem e, he ar gues t hat t he b asi s for tha tkno w l e dg e w as no te s t ab l i s he d. Pa r ke ra r gue s t hathe a nd G arate engag ed i n m an y l egi tim ate t ran sact i on s and t h at th e rec ord does not di st i n gu i sh betw een un t ai n t ed an d t ai n t ed f u n ds i n G arate’ s acc ou n t s. Pa rker
c om pl ai ns thatt he e l em ent s of the of fens e w er e notexpl ai ned t o hi m and t hat h e pl ead ed gu i l t y w i t h on l y a gen eral i zed know l edg e of t h e n ature of t h e m on ey la u n d e r in gch a r g e s . T h e s e co n te n tio n s a r e w ith o u t m e r it. Top r o v e t h a tP a r k e re n g a g e di n mo n e yl a u n d e r i ng u n d e r1 8 U. S

. C. § 195 7, t h e G overnm en tha d to sh ow t h at Pa rker “ en gag ed i n a m on et ary t r ans ac t i o n i n c r i m i nall y de r ive d p r o pe r t y o f av al ue g r e at e rt han $1 0, 00 0 and th a t th e p rop ertyw a s d erive dfrom s p ecif i edu n l a w ful activity. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v . Fr e e m an , 4 3 4 F .3 d 3 6 9 , 3 7 7 (5 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ); seealso Uni t e d St at e s v . Fuc hs , 4 6 7 F
. 3 d88 9 , 90 7 ( 5 th C ir
. 20 0 6 ). A“m on eta rytran sa cti on ” i s a “d ep osit,
w i t h draw al , t ran sfer, or e xc hang e , in o ra f f e c ti ng i n t erst ate orf

orei gn com m erce, Case: 08-51160 Document: 00511075397 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 51160

6 o f fu n d s o ram o n e ta r yin s tr u m e n t . . . b y , th r o u g h , o rto afin a n c ia l in s tit u tio n .” § 195 7(f

) ( 1)

. “ C ri m i n al l y d e riv e d p roperty” i s “ an y property c on st i t u t i n g, or d e r iv e dfr o m , p r o c e e d s o b ta in e dfr o m acr im in a l o ffe n s e .” § 1 9 5 7 (f)(2 ). The all e ga t i o ns i n t he i ndi c t m e nt t r ac k t he s t at ut e and c o nt ai n allo f t he
e le m e n ts o f th e o ffe n s e . S ee§ 1 95 7( a)

. I n a c c e pt i ng Par ke r ’ s g ui l t y pl e a t o t he
m on ey l au n deri n g coun t s, t h e di st ri ctcourta skedP arker w h et h er h e “ en gag ed in th e fe d e r a l fe lo n yo f tr a n s fe r r in gm o n e yw h ic h h a db e e n cr im in a llyd e r iv e d .” T h e fact u albasi s r ecit es t h at P a rk er c au sed G arate t o condu ctm on et ary t ran sact i on s on h i s beha l f “kn ow i n g t h at th e m on ey bei n g u sed w as t h at w h i ch
w as c r i m i nal l y de r ived. ” Apartf r om c ounse l ’ s as se r t i on t hatParkerhad engage d i n l egit i m at e t r ans ac t i ons , t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ec or d t o i ndi c at e that t h e t ai n t ed f

u n ds i n volvedi n t h e m on ey l au n deri n g accoun t s w ere co -m i n gl ed
w i t h f unds r e l at e d t o l e git i m at e t r ans ac t i o ns . Pa r ker di d no to bj e c tt hatt he aggr egat e a m ount s w i t hdraw n f r om G ar at e’ s ac c ount s di d n otex c ee d t he c l ean fu n d s in th o s e a c c o u n ts
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . D a v is , 226 F
. 3d346 , 357 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ); se e a lso P u ck ett , 12 9 S

. C t. at 14 3 1 -32 (req u i ri n g d efen d a n t to o b j ect to
errorin d i st ri ctcou rtpreven t s defen da n tf rom “ ‘ gam [i n g] ’t h e syst em ” an d gives di st ri ctcourtopp ort u n i t y t o adj u di cat e m att er i n f i rst i n st an ce and t o devel op fact u alrec ord, faci l i t ati n g ap pel l ate r evi ew )

. A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourt
ar guably s ho ul d ha vee xp l ai ne d the e l e m e nt s of t he o f fe ns e m o r e c l e ar l y and
s ho ul d ha vec o nduc t ed a m o r e t ho r o ughi nquir y i nt o the t ai nt e d na t ur e o f t he tr a n s fe r r e dfu n d s , a n ye r r o rinfa ilin gto d o s o w a s n o t c le a ro ro b v io u s . S ee P u ck ett , 129 S. C t
. at1429. M oreover, assum i n g t h at t h e di st ri ct court com m i t t ed c l ear error , P arker h as not show n t h at hi s s u bstanti alrig h t s w ere af fect ed, t h at i s, he h as not show n th at, bu tf

or the error , there i s a reasona bl e p robabili t y t h at h e w ou l d n ot h a v e e n te r e dh is g u iltyp le a . Se eCa s t r o - Tr e v i no , 4 6 4 F .3 da t 5 4 1
. N o ris th is
aca s e inw h ic h w e w o u lde x e r c is e o u rd is c r e tio n to co r r e c t p la in e r r o r . S ee P u ck ett , 129 S. Ct

. a t1 42 9. Pa r ke r ’ s f r aud ul e nts c he m e w as a uda c i o us a nd Case: 08-51160 Document: 00511075397 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/09/2010N o. 08- 51160

7 s ys t e m at i ca nd r e s ul t e d i n a l o s s t o t he G o ve r nm e nt e xc e e di ng $1 00 m i l l i o n. The t he o r e t i c alm ax i m um s e nt e nc e w as 50 o r 60 ye ar s i n pr i s o n. The pl e a ag r e e m e nt capp ed P arker’ s tot alim pri sonm en ta t1 0 years a n d l i m i t ed the rest i t u t i on order t o $10 m i l l i on . Th u s, P arker ben ef i t t ed greatly f

rom the pl ea agreem en t
. Pa rker
w as w el lrepresented by private cou n sela n d w as a bl e to secure a favorab l e pl ea agreem en tbecau se of t h e di f f i cul t i es assoc i ated w i t h p resenti n g a com pl ex case t o a l ay j u ry. A l t h ou gh lacki n g i n f orm aledu cat i on , P arker w as a soph i st i cat ed bus i n e s s m a n . Th e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t h i s g u il t y p l e a s we r e k n o wi ng and vol u n t ary. Th e j u dg m en ti s AF F I RMED. Case: 08-51160 Document: 00511075397 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/09/2010