NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM E R IC A, ) No. 16-10433 ) Pla intiff-Appe lle e , ) D.C . No. 1:14-c r-00228-LJO-SKO-7 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) ASHLEY STAR

LING THOM AS, ) AKA Ashly

Sta rling W illia

m s, )

) De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt. ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

14, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, M c KEOW

N, a nd FUENTES, * * C irc uit Judge s. Ashle y Sta rling Thom a s a

ppe a ls he r c onvic t ions for m one y la unde ring, 1 

# FIL ED APR 04 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

ble Julio M . Fue nte s, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Third C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion. 1 Se e 18 U.S.C . § 1956(a)(1)(B )(i).c onspira c y

to la unde r, 2 struc turing, 3 and c onspira c y to struc ture . 4 W e re ve rse and
re m and. (1) Thom a s a sse rts tha

t he r c onvic tions for m one y la unde ring m

u st be
re ve rse d be c a

use the e vide nc e wa s not suffic ie nt to support the ve rdic t s. 5 In pa rtic u la r, she atta c k s the suffic ie nc y of the e v ide nc e to support the e le m e nt tha

t
re quire s a de fe nda nt to know “ ‘ that the proc e e ds we re from unla wful a c tivity .’ ” 6 W e have c are fully

re vie we d the re c ord a

nd disa g re e with Thom a s’ c la im
re ga rding suffic ie nc y

of the e vide nc e tha

t wa s pla c e d be fore the jury . While we re c o gniz e tha

t the e v i de nc e is, for the m ost pa rt, c irc um sta

ntia l, tha t is not fa ta l. Se e U nite d State

s v . Santos , 553 U.S. 507, 521, 128 S. Ct. 2020, 2029, 170 L. Ed. 2d 912 (2008) (plural ity

opinion). He r unusua l tra ve l a nd ba nk-a c c ount-c re ation

2 Se e id. § 1956(h). 3 Se e 31 U.S.C . § 5324(a)(1), (3). 4 Se e 18 U.S.C . § 371. 5 Se e Unite d State

s v . W e bste r , 623 F.3d 901, 907 (9th C ir. 2010); Unite d State s v . Rubio-Villarea l , 967 F.2d 294, 296 (9th C ir. 1992) (e n ba nc ); se e also Unite d State s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1163–65 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba nc ). 6 Unite d State

s v . W i lk e s , 662 F.3d 524, 545 (9th C ir. 2011). W e note tha t she did not ne e d to know wha t the pre c ise unla

wful a c tivity

wa s. Se e 18 U.S.C
. § 1956(c )(1). Howe ve r, the supe rse ding indic tm e nt c ha rge d tha t it wa s m arijua

na distribution. 2be havior, 7 the fa c t tha t he r trave l wa s pa id for by le a de rs of the m arijua

na drug
c onspira c y , a

nd he r own va

ry i ng (a nd fa l se ) storie s a

bout thesourc e of the funds, 8
we re c ouple d with thesta t e m e nts of othe rs, who we re involve d in the drug
c onspira c y . The latte r state m e nts indic ate d tha t she we ll kne w tha

t ille ga l drug distribution wa s involve d
. All of tha t e vide nc e suffic e d to support the guilty
ve rdic t on thetra

nsa c tion c o unts 9 a s we ll a s the c o nspira c y c ount. 1 0 Howe v e r, Thom a s a lso a sse rts tha t he arsay sta te m e nts from

individuals involve d in thedrug c onspira c y we re im prope rly a d m itte d a nd we re pre

judic ia l. W ith tha t we a gre e . Unle ss c o ve re d by the c o-c onspira

t or e xc e ption, the sta te m e nts we re inde e d he a

rsay . Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 801(c ), (d)(2)(E). For the
e xc e ption to a

pply , the sta

te m e nts m

ust be in furthe ranc e of the c onspira c y , m ust be m a de during the c o n spira c y , a nd “ the re [m

ust be ] inde pe nde nt proof of the
e xiste nc e of the c onspira c y an d of the c onne c t ion of thede c l arant a nd the de fe nda n t to it.” Unite d State

s v . W e ine r , 578 F.2d 757, 768 (9th C ir. 1978) (pe r

7 Se e Unite d State

s v . Re c io , 371 F.3d 1093, 1105–06 (9th C i r. 2004); Unite d State s v . W alitw arangk

ul , 808 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th C ir. 1987). 8 W alitw arangk

u l , 808 F.2d a

t 1354; Unite d

State s v . Te bha , 770 F.2d 1454, 1457 (9th C ir. 1985); K

e y e s v . Unite d State

s , 314 F.2d 119, 122 (9th C ir. 1963). 9 18 U.S.C . § 1956(a)(1)(B )(i). 1 0Id. § 1956(h); se e also W hitfie ld v
. Unite d State

s , 543 U.S. 209, 219, 125 S. C t. 687, 694, 160 L. Ed. 2d 611 (2005). 3c uriam ). He re , during a c onve rsation be twe e n

two m e m be rs of the drug c o nspira c y one de c la re d to theothe r that Thom a s ha d de live re d a c a sh pa ym e nt from

a third
m e m b e r of tha t c onspira c y

to the de c la

rant. The de c la

ra nt we nt on to sta

te that Thom a s wa s he lping thethird m e m be r with de live ry

of pa c ka ge s of drugs. W hile the first of those

sta te m e nts m ay

we ll ha v e be e n outsidethe e xc e p tion on the ba sis that it wa s not in furtheranc e of the c onspira c y , 1 1 the se c ond one doe s not ha ve tha t de fe c t. Howe ve r, a d

m ission of both of the

m suffe rs from

a la c k of a ny inde pe nde nt e vide nc e tha t Thom a s wa s a

m e m be r of the drug c onspira c y . For tha t
re a s on, ne ithe r state m e nt wa s a d m issible
. Se e Unite d State s v . Silv e rman , 861 F.2d 571, 577–78 (9th C ir. 1988). Them e re fa c t tha t Thom a s m ay

have be e n a

m e m be r of a c o nspira c y

to la unde r proc e e ds tha

t turne d out to befrom the drug c onspira c y doe s not suffic e to show tha t she wa s a

m e m be r of the drug c onspira c y . Se e Unite d State s v . Umagat , 998 F.2d 770, 773–74 (9th C ir. 1993); Unite d State s v . Brow n , 912 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th C ir. 1990). M ore ove r, the im p rope r a dm ission of tha

t he arsay e vide nc e wa s not ha

rm le ss. The othe r e vide n c e that she kne w tha t ille ga lly

1 1 Se e U nite d State

s v . Moran , 493 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ); U

nite d State

s v . Bow man , 215 F.3d 951, 961 (9th C ir. 2000); Unite d State s v . W illiams , 989 F.2d 1061, 1068 (9th C ir. 1993); Unite d State s v . Yarbrough , 852 F.2d 1522, 1535–36 (9th C ir. 1988). 4obta ine d funds we re be ing la unde re d wa s fa

r from ove rwhe lm i ng 1 2 and the he arsay e vide nc e of he r involve m e nt in thedrug c onspira c y itse lf m ay

we l l ha v e tippe d the
sc a l e s a ga inst he r. 1 3 The re fore , we re ve rse he r c onvic tions on the m one y la unde ring c ounts a

nd re m and. Se e Loc k

hart v . N e lson , 488 U.S. 33, 34, 41–42, 109 S. C t. 285, 287, 290–91, 102 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1988). (2) Thom a s a lso a sse rts tha t he r c onvic t ions for struc turing m ust be re ve rse d on the ba sis of insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to support the ve rdic ts. W e a gre e . To susta in
a c onvic tion for struc turing tra nsa c tions in order to a

void there quire m e nt tha

t those m ust be re porte d to the Unite d State s Se c re ta ry of the Tre a sury by

fina nc ia l institutions, 1 4 the gove rnm e nt m ust prove , am ong othe r things, tha t the de fe nda

nt kne w a bout there q

u ire m e nt. 1 5 The gove rnm e nt did not do so in this c a se . No doubt c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e c an be re lie d upon to show knowle dge and in a prope r c a se tha

t c an be shown by

a patte rn whe re the de fe nda n t divide d wha

t

1 2 Se e U nite d State

s v . Sauza-Martine

z , 217 F.3d 754, 760–61 (9th C ir. 2000). 1 3 Se e Parle v . Runne ls , 505 F.3d 922, 932–33 (9th C i r. 2007).

1 4 Se e 31 U.S.C . § 5313(a); 31 C .F.R . § 1010.311. 1 5 Se e R atzlaf v . Unite d State s , 510 U.S. 135, 149 n.19, 114 S. C t . 655, 663 n.19, 126 L. Ed. 2d. 615 (1994). W e note that while the re wa s a disse nt in Ratzlaf

, the d isse n ting justic e s a gre e d tha t knowle dge wa s re quire d. Id. at 152, 114 S. C t. at 665 (B la c k

m un, J., dissenting). 5would logic a l ly be la rge de posits into sm

a lle r am ounts a

nd sc atte re d the m te m pora lly or in othe r way s. Se e Unite d State s v . Sc holl , 166 F.3d 964, 979 (9th C ir. 1999); Unite d State

s v . Tipton , 56 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th C ir. 1995). He re , howe v e r, the e v ide n c e did not show tha t Thom a s c ontrolle d the de posite d am ounts
at a ll. Afte r othe rs put m one y i nto the a c c ounts, shewithdre w am ounts quite c lose to the de posite d am o unts a t som e late r tim e (within oneor two da y s). M ore ove r, the e vide n c e showe d tha

t o t he rs who we re pa

rtic i pating in sim

ila r tra nsfe rs we re not told a bout there porting re quire m e nts or, for tha t m atte r, the sourc e of the funds. He re , the gove rnm e nt re lie s upon a kind of pa

tte rn whe re the re is no
e vide nc e tha

t Thom a s ha d a

nything to do with se

tting tha t pa tte rn or kne w the
re a s on for whic h it wa s se t. Thus, tha t e vide nc e doe s not suffic e . He r c o nvic tions for the struc turing tra

nsa c tions c annot sta

nd. Thus, were ve rse he r struc turing
c onvic tions for la c k of e vide nc e . Se e Burk s v . Unite d State

s , 437 U.S. 1, 17–18, 98 S. C t. 2141, 2150–51, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1978). REVER SED and REM ANDED.

6Unite d

State s v . Thom as , No. 16-10433 FUENTES, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt. I c onc ur in the disposition with one e xc e p t ion: I would hold tha t the re is suffic i e nt e vide nc e to support the jury ’ s guilty

ve rdic t on thestruc turing c o unts. B y sta tute and re gula

t ion, ba nks a re re quire d

to file a c urre nc y

tra nsa c tion
re port e ve ry

tim e a c ustom e r m ake s a de posit or withdra wa l involving m

ore tha n $10,000. Se e 31 U.S.C . § 5313(a); 31 C .F.R . § 1010.311. In turn, it is ille g a l to
c a use a ba nk to fa i l to file a

re port, 31 U.S.C . § 5324(a)(1), or to struc ture a transa c tion to e va de the re porting re q uire m e nt, id. § 5324(a )(3). 1 Vie wing the
e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the Gove rnm e nt, I be lie ve tha t a ny rationa l juror c ould ha

ve found be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt tha

t Thom a s wa s aware of the
re porting re quire m e nt a

nd purpose fully

sought to a

void it. In the sum

m e r of 2013, Thom a s took two brie f, c ross-c o untry trips to C a lifornia to m ake struc ture d withdra wa ls from he r c he c king a c c ounts. W hile in the s tat e , Thom a s m a de 34 withdra wa ls— tota ling ove r $200,000—in a m ounts le ss tha n $10,000. The se withdra

w a ls, none of whic h e x c e e de d $10,000, we re m a de through a c c ounts with no sim ila r history of a c t ivity . Ta

ke n a lone , I be lie ve tha

t Thom a s’ patte rn of struc t ure d tra nsa c tions pe rm its the jury to re a sona

bly infe r that 

# FIL ED APR 04 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1 “ Struc turing” is the pra c tic e of avoiding de posits a nd withdra

wa ls in e xc e ss of $10,000 so a s to not trigger a re port. 31 C .F.R
. § 1010.100(xx).she kne w a

bout the$10,000 reporting thre shold. Se eUnite d State s v . Mac Phe rson , 424 F.3d 183, 195 (2d C ir. 2005) (“ [A] patte rn of struc ture d tra nsa c tions . . . may , by itse l f , pe rm i t a rationa l jury

to infe r that a

de fe nda nt ha d knowle dge of a

nd the inte nt to e va d e c urre nc y

re porting re quire m e n ts.” ) (e m pha sis a dde d). He re , howe ve r, the re wa s a dditiona l e vide nc e tha t Thom a s kne w of a

nd inte nde d to e va de the re porting re quire m e nt. Spe c ific a lly , Thom a s ope ne d two
ne w c he c king a c c o unts just be fore he r first trip to C a lifornia . Furthe r, in C a lifornia , Thom a s m a de struc ture d withdra wa ls a t 28 diffe re nt ba

nk bra n c h e s throughout the

sta te . This c onduc t supports the infe re nc e tha

t Thom a s sc atte re d he r struc ture d tra

nsa c tions be twe e n a c c ounts a nd ba nk bra nc h e s to a void de te c tion. Se e Unite d State

s v . Van Alle n , 524 F.3d 814, 820 (7th C ir. 2008) (“ The fa c t tha t [de fe nda nt] wa s willing to sa

c rific e e ffic ie nc y

and c onve nie nc e . . . by

going to
se pa ra te ba nks in thesa

m e da y to m ake a lm ost ide ntic a l de posits supports the infe re n c e tha

t he kne w of a

nd inte nde d to a

void there porting re quire m e nts.” ). Additionally , whe n se pa

ra te ly c onfronte d by a

ba nk te lle r and a

n IR S Spe c ia l Age nt, Thom a s ga ve fa lse and inc o nsiste nt e xpla nations re ga

rding the struc turing a c tivity

in he r a c c ounts. This dubious be havior furthe r supports the jury ’ s ve rdic t on the se c ounts. Se e Unite d State s v . Dav e nport , 929 F.2d 1169, 1174 (7th C ir. 1991) (noting tha t “ the fishine ss” of a

n e xpla nation for struc ture d
2transa c tions is “ c irc um sta ntia l e vide nc e that the struc turing wa s done with the
e va sive purpose tha

t the sta t ute re quire s for lia

bility ” ). What’ s m ore , the unla wful
sourc e of the funds— a

fa c t whic h the m a

j ority doe s not dispute

— provide s a

nothe r ba sis from

whic h the jury c ould infe r that Thom a s kne w of the re porting
re quire m e nt. Se e Mac

Phe rson , 424 F.3d a

t 193 (“ [T] he c rim ina l origin of struc ture d funds, to the

e xte nt it provide s a m otive for c onc e a lm e nt from gove rnm e nt a

uthoritie s, m ay

c onstitute an a dditiona l c irc um s ta nc e from whic h a jury c an infe r a

de fe nda nt’ s knowle dge of” the re porting re quire m e nt). In c onside ring the suffic ie nc y of the e v ide nc e , “ a

re vie wing c ourt m ay

not
a sk itse lf whe the r it

be lie ve s tha

t the e v ide nc e at the tria l e sta blishe d guilt be y ond a
re a s ona ble doubt, only

whe the r any

rationa l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve m a de that finding.” Unite d State

s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba nc ) (e m pha sis in origina

l) (c ita tions a nd quota t ion m arks om itte d). “ [T] h is de fe re ntia l sta nda rd of re vie w prote c ts the trie r of fa c t’ s re sponsibility to re solve c onflic ting te stim ony , we igh the e vide nc e , a nd dra wre a sona ble infe re nc e s from

the e vide nc e pre s e nte d.” Unite d State

s v . Stanton , 501 F.3d 1093, 1099 (9th C ir. 2007). The re is ra

re ly dire c t e v ide nc e of knowle dge in struc turing c a se s. U nite d State s v . Tipton , 56 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C i r. 1995). Ne ve rthe le ss, it is we l le sta blishe d tha

t “ [a ] jury m ay find the re quisiteknowle dge tha t the struc t

uring wa s
3unla

wful by drawing re a sona

ble infe re nc e s from

the e vide nc e of de fe nda

nt’ s c onduc t.” Unite d State

s v . Sc holl , 166 F.3d 964, 979 (9th C ir. 1999). W hile I unde rsta nd the m a jority ’ s c onc e rns, in light of the “ gre at de fe re nc e ” tha

t we m ust give to a jury ve rdic t, I c a

nnot sa y tha t no ra tiona l juror c ould ha

ve found the
e sse ntia l e le m e nts of struc t uring be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt. Unite d State

s v . Pe lisame n , 641 F.3d 399, 409 n.6 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a use “ [s] uffic ie nt e v ide nc e supports the

jury ’ s c onside re d ve rdic t, [] the ve rdic t wa rrants de fe re n c e ra the r tha n se c o nd-gue ssing.” U

nite d State

s v . Bonds , 784 F.3d 582, 603 (9th C i r. 2015) (e n ba nc ) (R awlinson, J., disse

nting). For the a bove re a s ons, whileI othe rwise c o n c ur, I re spe c tfully disse nt from the m a jority ’ s holding on the

struc turing c o unts.

4