T h e H o n o ra b le P a u l R . M ich e l, C h ief C irc u it Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * forthe Feder al C i r cui t , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4114 RO BE RT O M U N EZ- M O RA LES,

P eti ti o n er, v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R e sp o n d e n t. O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 045- 553- 116) A r gued M ar ch 9, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , SM I T H and M I C H E L , C i r cui tJ udges * ( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay11, 2010)

OP I NI ON M I C H E L , C i r cui tJ udge R o b e rto M u n e z -M o ra les p led g u iltyto a c rim in a l in f o rm a tio n c h a rg in g h im w ith8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) pr ovi des i n r el evantpartthat“[t ] he t erm ‘ aggr avat ed 1 fel ony ’ m eans . . . an off ens e des cr i bed i n s ect i on 1956 of Ti t l e 18 ( r el at i ng t o l aunder i ng o f m o n e ta ry in s tru m e n ts ) . . . i f th e a m o u n t o f

th e f u n d s e x c e e d e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .” T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls h a d ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (b )( 3 ). 2 W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o ru l e o n M u n e z - M o r a l e s ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1252. 2 t aki ng parti n a cr i m i nal cons pi r acyunder18 U . S. C . § 1956( h) i nvol vi ng m oney la u n d e ri n g a n d tr a n s p o rt in g , h a rb o ri n g , a n d c o n c e a lin g u n d o c u m e n te d a lie n s . Subse quent l y , an I m m i gr at i on J udge hel d thatthi s convi ct i on cons t i tut ed an a ggr avat ed f e lo n ya s d e f

in e d a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(D ), re n d e rin g M u n e z -M o ra les su b jec t to 1 r emoval fr om the U ni t ed St at es , and the B oar d di s m i s s ed M unez- M or al es ’ s appea l fr om the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s or derof r emoval . Sect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) defi nes aggr avat ed fel oni es t o i ncl ude off

ens es under18 U . S. C . § 1956 i n w hi ch the amountof funds i nvol ved i n the cr i m e exc eeds $10, 000. M unez- M or al es pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B o a rd ’s d ism iss a l o f

h is a p p e a l f

ro m th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s o rd e r o f re m o v a l, cont endi ng thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence forthe B oar d and the I m m i gr at i on J udge t o fi nd thatthe funds i nvol ved i n t he cr i m i nal cons pi r acyt o w hi ch M unez- M or al es pl ed g u i l tye x c e e d e d $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 2 I. R ob ert o M un ez-M oral es w as adm i t t ed to the U nit ed S t at es on Jun e 26 , 19 96 , as a law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t. H e se ttl e d in M a rtin sb u rg , W e st V irg in ia, w h e re h e c u rre n tly r es i des w i th hi s w i fe a nd hi s chi l d, w ho i s a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. I n and ar ound3

M a r t i n s b u r g , M u n e z - M o r a l e s a n d o th e rm e m b e r s o f h i s e x t e n d e d f

a m i l y o p e r a t e f

a m i l ysty l e res t aurant s. O n A ugus t20, 2003, M unez- M or al es s i gned a gui l typl ea a gr eementi n the Sout hern D i s tr i ctof W es tV i r gi ni a i n w hi ch he c ons ent ed t o the fi l i ng of a one - count c rim in a l in f

o rm a tio n c h a rg in g h im w ith c o n sp ira c yto e n g a g e in m o n e ylau n d e rin g in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1956( h) . N ei therthe i nform at i on northe pl ea a gr eements t at ed the amountof m oneyl aunder ed bythe cons pi r acy . A ccor di ng t o the i nform at i on and pl ea agr eement , the money - l aunder i ng cons pi r acyoper at ed appr oxi m at el yfr om J anuary1999 t o A pr i l 2003 and i nvol ved l aunder i ng funds i n fur ther ance of the under l y i ng cr i m i nal act i vi tyof tr ans por t i ng, harbor i ng, and conc eal i ng the undocument ed al i ens w ho w or ked i n th e r e s t a u r a n t s o p e r a t e d b y M u n e z - M o r a l e s ’ s e x t e n d e d f a m i l y. O n O ct ober16, 2003, the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Southern D i s tr i ctof W es tV i r gi ni a hel d a pl ea he ar i ng, atw hi ch the governm entdi s cus s ed w hati tw oul d be a b le to p ro v e sh o u ld th e c a se b e tried o n its m e rits. T h e g o v e rn m e n t av e rre d th a t itw o u ld be abl e t o pr ove thatthe cons pi r acyi nvol ved r es t aur ant s co- ow ned byM unez- M or al es and hi s br other , A l var o M unoz ( as w el l as addi t i onal r es t aur ant s ow ned byM unoz and otherm ember s of hi s ext ended f ami l y ) ; thatthe cons pi r acyw as s pearheade d byM unoz; thatthe cons pi r at or s know i ngl yempl oy ed undocument ed al i ens and underpai d them; t hat th e c o n sp ira to rs u se d th e u n d e rp a ym e n ts to u n d e r-re p o rt th e ir p ro f its a n d to c re a te fi ct i t i ou s payrol l check s t o the und ocu m ented al i en em ploy ees, creat i ng cash proceed s;4

thatM unez- M or al es pr ovi ded hi s cas h pr ocee ds t o M unoz; thatM unoz w i r ed the money he o btai ned from M un ez-M oral es and the othercon spi rat ors t o A ri zon a t o p ay“coy otes ” to il lega ll yb ri n g u n d o cu m en ted a li en s into the U n it ed S tat es; th at th e c o n sp ir ators empl oy ed the undocument ed al i ens br oughtt o the U ni t ed St at es i n thei rr es t aur ant s ; and that M un ez-M oral es knew that the cash he g ave to M un oz w as going t o p aythe “co y otes ” w ho w er e br i ngi ng the undocument ed al i ens acr os s the bor der . T he governm entdi d not s t at e atthi s t i m e how m uch moneyhad bee n l aunder ed bythe cons pi r acy . M unezM o ra le s to ld th e D is tr ic t J u d g e th a t h e u n d e rs to o d a n d a g re e d w ith th is re c ita tio n o f f a c ts . T he D i s tr i ctJ udge ther efor e ac cept ed M unez- M or al es ’ s pl ea a nd convi ct ed hi m of v iolati n g 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 6 (h). A pr e- s ent enci ng r eportw as pr epar ed and f i l ed w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ; i n addi t i on to the fa cts recited a b o v e, i t con tai n ed the f o ll o w ing ad d it ion al st atem en ts. T h e re p o rt stat ed that the u n d o cu m en ted a li en s em p loy ed b ythe c o n sp ir ators w ere p aid th ree d o ll ars perhourw i th no benef

i t s , thattheyw er e r equi r ed t o w or k ei ghtyhour s perw eek, and that the r es t aur ant s ow ned and ope r at ed bythe cons pi r at or s keptal l gr atui t i es i nt ended f ort he e mp l o y e e s . T h e r e p o r ts t a t e d th a tM u n e z - M o r a l e s a d mi t t e d th a th e e mp l o y e d two undocument ed al i ens i n hi s r es t aur antforthr ee y ear s . T he r eportal s o s t at ed thatthe U ni t ed St at es es t i m at ed the cons pi r at or s l aunder ed $400, 000 t o $1, 000, 000 and thatt he g u id e lin e ra n g e f

o r a f in e th a t co u ld b e im p o se d o n M u n e z -M o ra les w a s $ 2 ,0 0 0 to $2, 000, 000. M unez- M or al es ’ s att orneyas ked forand r ece i ved an a ddendum t o the dr aft5

pr e- s ent enci ng r eportm aki ng cl earthatM unez- M or al es ’ s s ent ence s houl d t ake a ccountof hi s r el at i vel ym i norr ol e i n t he cons pi r acy , gi ven thathe managed onl ya s i ngl e r es t aur ant w hi l e otherm ember s of the cons pi r acym anage d tw o orm or e r es t aur ant s eac h, and gi ven thatM unez- M or al es r el i ed on hi s br other s t o t el l hi m how t o carryoutthe i l l egal act i ons o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. O n Ja n u a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , M u n e z -M o ra les a p p e a re d a t a s e n ten c in g h e a rin g . H is att orneyadvi s ed the courtthathe had r evi ew ed the pr e- s ent enci ng r eportw i th M unezM or al es and thatM unez- M or al es under s t ood the r eportand had no obj ect i ons . T he s ent enci ng j udge found s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i tyt o s uppor tthe pr obabl e ac cur acyof the pr e- s ent enci ng r eportand i t s addendum, and the courtther efor e adopt ed the r eportand i t s addendum. A ft eradvi s i ng M unez- M or al es thathe coul d be s ent ence d t o up t o 20 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entand as s es s ed a f i ne up t o $2, 000, 000, the s ent enci ng j udge i m pos ed a s ent ence of s i x m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and no fi ne. O n M ar ch 31, 2004, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tychar ged M unezM or al es w i th bei ng r emovabl e under8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) forhavi ng been convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony . A ccor di ng t o the not i ce gi ven t o M unez- M or al es , t he crim e to w h ich h e h ad p led g u il tyw as p rop erlyco n side red an ag g rav ated fe lon yu n d er 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) , beca us e the amountof funds i nvol ved i n the money - l aunder i ng s cheme exce eded $10, 000. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge t erm i nat ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs on M ay25, 2004, hol di ng6

thatthe governm enthad fa i l ed t o pr ove thatthe amountof funds i nvol ved exc eede d $10, 000. O n the fi r s tr emand fr om the B oar d, the I m m i gr at i on J udge aga i n hel d thatt he g o v e rn m e n th a d f

a i l e d t o p r o v e th a ts u f

f i c i e n tf u n d s w e r e i n v o l v e d i n th e m o n e yl aunder i ng cons pi r acy , s o M unez- M or al es w as notr emovabl e. T he governm entagai n appea l ed t o the B oar d, w hi ch r ever s ed the I m m i gr at i on J udge on J une 26, 2007. T he B oar d hel d that8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) , w hi ch pr ovi des thataggr avat ed fe l oni es i ncl ude cr i m i nal convi ct i ons under18 U . S. C . § 1956 i n w hi ch the amount of funds i nvol ved i n t he cr i m i nal act i vi tyexce eds $10, 000, s houl d notbe r ead a s i ncl udi ng onl ythos e cr i m es defi ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 1956 thathave the $10, 000 amount as an el ementof the off

ens e. I ns t ead, the B oar d hel d that8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) i nvi t ed i nves t i gat i on i nt o the fa ct s under l y i ng a convi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 1956 t o det erm i ne w h ethe r th e a m o u n t of

fu n d s inv o lved ac tuallyex ce ed ed $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . In a d d it ion , the B o ard h eld th at th ere w as su ff ici en t evid en ce to f

ind that M u n ez -M o rales’s co n v ict ion w as f o r a cr i m i nal cons pi r acythatl aunder ed more than $10, 000. Fi r s t , the B oar d not ed thatthe pr e- s ent enci ng r eportes t i m at ed the amountof l aunder ed funds as betw een $400, 000 and $1, 000, 000. Second, the B oar d expl ai ned thatthe s ent enci ng courthad expr es s l yadopt ed the fi ndi ngs of the pr e- s ent enci ng r eportand thatM unez- M or al es had made no obj ect i on t o thos e fi ndi ngs . T hi r d, the B oar d not ed thatthe s ent enci ng courthad ca l cul at ed M unezM or al es ’ s gui del i ne fi ne r ange a s i ncl udi ng a fi ne up t o $2, 000, 000, w hi ch, thanks t o t he pr ovi s i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1956( a) ( 1) s ett i ng a maxi m um fi ne of “ tw i ce the val ue of the7

p ro p e rtyin v o lv e d in th e tra n sa c tio n ,” in d ica ted th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt m u st n e c e ss a rily have f ound thatthe cons pi r acyl aunder ed $1, 000, 000. U nderourdeci s i on i n A laka v. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 5 6 F .3 d 8 8 ,1 0 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), th e B o a rd h e ld th a t th e se “ e x p licit fac tual fi ndi ngs ” s houl d have be en cons i der ed bythe I m m i gr at i on J udge and that , had theybeen s o cons i der ed, the I m m i gr at i on J udge w oul d have be en r equi r ed t o hol d that M u n e z -M o ra le s ’s c o n v ic tio n w a s f o r a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n yu n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) . T he B oar d ther efor e r ei ns t at ed the r emoval pr ocee di ngs , s us t ai ned the aggr avat ed fe l onyal l egat i on, and r emanded t o the I m m i gr at i on J udge fora det erm i nat i on as t o the ava i l abi l i tyof anyform of r el i ef f r om r emoval . M unez- M or al es decl i ned t o s eek r el i ef f r om r emoval , s o the I m m i gr at i on J udge ent er ed an or derof r emoval t o M exi co. M unez- M or al es appea l ed the or derof r emoval t o the B oar d. O n Sept ember16, 2008, the B oar d di s m i s s ed the appe al , r ej ect i ng M unez- M or al es ’ s ar gum ent s thatthe Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e e rre d b yc o n sid e rin g th e c o n ten ts o f th e p re -se n ten c in g re p o rt, th a t 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) s houl d be l i m i t ed t o cr i m es havi ng a $10, 000 amount req u ir em en t as an elem en t of the o ff en se, an d that the p re-sen tenc ing rep o rt ’s p re p o n d e ra n c e -o f

-th e -e v id e n c e sta n d a rd w a s in su f f icie n t to p ro v e th e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 a m o u n t to the clearand con vinci ng st and ard r equ i red for r em ov al proceed i ng s. II. W e b e g i n b yc o n s i d e r i n g wh e th e rth e Bo a r d wa s c o rr e c tt o c o n c l u d e th a t8 U. S . C. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) i nvi t es i nves t i gat i on i nt o the fa ct s under l y i ng a part i cul arconvi ct i on,8

r atherthan bei ng l i m i t ed t o thos e cr i m es forw hi ch a $10, 000 amount - i nvol ved r equi r ementi s an el ementof the off ens e. W e r evi ew the B oar d’ s l egal concl us i ons de n o v o . Sm riko v . A sh c ro ft , 3 8 7 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). I n Ni j haw an v. H

older , the S u p rem e C o u rtrev iew ed h o w to d eterm ine w h ethe r a st atute cat ego ri zi ng con vict i on s perm i t s i nv est i gati on bey on d the el em ents of those convi ct i ons and i nt o t he fa ct s under l y i ng them. 557 U . S. ___, 129 S. C t . 2294, 2300- 02 ( 2009) . Fi r s t , the C our tr evi ew ed i t s ear l i erdeci s i ons r egar di ng the A r m ed C ar eer C r i m i nal A ct( A C C A ) , w hi ch ca t egor i zes fel onyconvi ct i ons as ei therconvi ct i ons for

“ v io len t” f

e lo n ies o r c o n v ictio n s f o r n o n -v io len t f

e lo n ies . T h e A C C A d e f in e d “ v io len t” fel oni es “t o i ncl ude ‘ bur gl ary , ar s on, orext or t i on’ and ‘ cr i m e[s ] ’ thathave ‘ as an el ement ’ the us e orthr eat ened us e of f or ce. ” I d. at2300 ( quot i ng 18 U . S. C . §§ 9 2 4 (e )(2 )(B )(i)-(ii)). T h e C o u rt n o ted th a t th is p a rticu lar lan g u a g e re f e rre d “ to g e n e ric cr i m es , ” i nvi t i ng an exa m i nat i on onl yof the el ement s of the cr i m i nal s t atut e i n ques t i on, n o t th e f a c ts u n d e rl y in g a p a rt ic u la r c o n v ic tio n . I d. T h e A C C A a lso in c lu d e d w ith in its vi ol entfel onydefi ni t i on “‘ cr i m e[s ] ’ that‘ i nvol v[e] conductthatpr es ent s a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal i nj uryt o another . ’ ” I d. T he C our tnot ed thatthi s l anguage w as m or e ambi guous buts t i l l r efe r r ed “t o cr i m es as gener i cal l ydefi ned, ” pr ecl udi ng in v e s tig a tio n o f

th e f a c ts u n d e rl y in g p a rt ic u la r c o n v ic tio n s . I d. ( ci t i ng Jam es v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 0 U . S . 1 9 2 , 2 0 2 (20 0 7 )). T he C our tthen turned t o i nt erpr et i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) , w hi ch pr ovi des9

m anys epar at e ca t egor i es of convi ct i ons thatcons t i tut e convi ct i ons of aggr avat ed fel oni es . A l though t he C ourtdi d noti nt erpr ets ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) , w hi ch i s ati s s ue h ere , itd id interp ret sev era l othe r po rt ion s o f se cti o n 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 ). F ir st, the C o u rt exami ned s ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) , l i s t i ng “murde r , r ape, ors exual abus e of a m i nor ” as “agg ravat ed fe l on [i es] . ” T he C ou rtheld that this defini t i on referred t o the gen eri c cri m es, n o t th e sp e c if

ic o f f e n se s c o m m itt e d b yp a rticu lar in d iv id u a ls. S im ilarly , the C o u rt h e ld thats ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( B ) , l abel i ng “i l l i ci ttr aff i cki ng i n a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance ” an

“ a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y ,” re f

e rr e d to th e g e n e ri c c ri m e . I d. T he C our tfound that su b p a ra g ra p h s (A ), (B ), (C ), (E ), (H ), (I), (J), a n d (L ) o f se c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 ) re f e rre d to g e n e ri c c ri m e s . I

d. B utthe C our tnot ed thatotherpor t i ons of s ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ap p ea red to ref

er to the sp ec ifi c c ir cu m stan ce s o f p arti cu lar co n v ict ion s. In p arti cu lar, s ubpar agr aph ( P) , w hi l e i ncl udi ng the gene r i c cr i m e of “ for gi ng . . . pas s por t [s ] ” as an “agg ravat ed fe l on y , ” excluded from that cat ego ryanycon vict i on that const i tuted “a fi rs t offe ns e forw hi ch the al i en . . . comm i t t ed the off ens e forthe purpos e of a s s i s t i ng . . . t he al i en’ s s pous e, chi l d, orpar ent . ” I d. T he C our thel d thatthi s l anguage “mustr efe rt o t he part i cul arci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch an of fende rcomm i t t ed the cr i m e on a pa r t i cul ar occa s i on. ” I

d. at2301. Si m i l ar l y , the C our tfound thatthe l anguage i n s ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( K ) ( i i ) r el at i ng t o comm i s s i on of part i cul aroffe ns es “forcomm er ci al a d v a n tag e ,” a s w e ll as th e lan g u a g e in se c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(M )(ii) re latin g to o f f e n se s “ in w h ich th e re v e n u e lo ss to th e G o v e rn m e n t ex c e e d s $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ,” w e re c lea r re f e re n c e s to10

s p e c if ic f a c ts u n d e rl y in g p a rt ic u la r c o n v ic tio n s . I d. H a v in g th u s f

o u n d th a t se c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 ) c o n tain e d so m e re f e re n c e s to f

a c ts under l y i ng s peci fi c convi ct i ons and s om e r efe r ence s t o gener i c cr i m es , the C our tturned t o the pr ovi s i on actual l yati s s ue i n Ni j haw an , se c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(M )(i), w h ich re f e rs to

“ a n o f f e n s e th a t. . . i n v o l v e s f

r a u d o rd e c e i ti n wh i c h th e l o s s t o th e v i c t i m o rv i c t i ms exce eds $10, 000. ” The C our tfound thatthe us e of the phr as e “i n w hi ch” i nvi t ed i nves t i gat i on i nt o the s peci fi c off ens e ati s s ue, r atherthan onl yi nt o the el ement s of the s ta tu te u n d e r w h ic h th e c o n v ic tio n o c c u rr e d . I d. I n addi t i on, the C our tnot ed that , abs ent in v e stig a tio n in to th e f

a c ts u n d e rly in g th e c o n v ictio n , se c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(M )(i) w o u ld have ne ar l yno appl i cat i on, beca us e ther e w er e fe w ( i f any ) cr i m i nal fr aud s t atut es that c o n ta in e d a s a n e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e a re q u ir e m e n t th a t th e lo s s e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . I d. T hus , s ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) w oul d notcl as s i fyanyconvi ct i on atal l as an “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” unl es s i tw as i nt erpr et ed t o perm i ti nves t i gat i on of the under l y i ng fa cts o f a p arti cu lar co n v ict ion . T h e C o u rtinterpre ted th e statute to a v o id this ab su rd re su lt. Si m i l aranal y s i s i s pos s i bl e her e. Sect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) cl as s i fi es as an aggr avat ed fe l onya convi ct i on for“an of fens e des cr i bed i n s ect i on 1956 of t i t l e 18 ( r el at i ng t o l aunder i ng of m onet aryi ns trum ent s ) ... i f the amountof the funds exce eded $10, 000. ” A l though t hi s l acks the “i n w hi ch” l anguage pr es enti n s ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ) , i nt erpr et i ng i tt o r efe ronl yt o gener i c cr i m es w oul d r enders ect i on11

1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) ut t er l ym eani ngl es s . I f the s t atut e w er e i nt erpr et ed t o al l ow i nves t i gat i on o n lyin to th e sta tu to rye lem e n ts o f th e g e n e ric c rim e o f

w h ich so m e o n e w a s c o n v icte d , it w oul d cl as s i fyas aggr avat ed fe l oni es onl ythos e cr i m es defi ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 1956 w h ic h in c lu d e d a s a n e le m e n t a re q u ir e m e n t th a t th e la u n d e re d f u n d s e x c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . B utno cr i m e def

i ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 1956 i ncl udes s uch an e l ement , s o s ect i on 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( D) wo u l d b e me a n i n g l e s s u n d e rth i s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n . Gi v e n th e S u p r e me C our t ' s r el uct ance i n Ni

j haw an t o f

i n d p o r t i o n s o f

s e c t i o n 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) me a n i n g l e s s , we cannotfi nd faul tw i th the B oar d’ s i nt erpr et at i on of s ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) her e as i n v i t i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o th e f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g a p a r t i c u l a rc o n v i c t i o n . M o r e o v e r , a s we n o ted in o u r Ni

j haw an deci s i on, s ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) has qual i fy i ng l anguage

“ a n a lo g o u s ” to th a t u s e d in s e c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( M )( I) , s o th e ys h o u ld b e tr e a te d s im ila rl y . Ni j haw an v. A t t or ney G ener al , 5 2 3 F .3 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), a ff’d , 129 S. C t . 2294 ( 2009) . W e ther efor e hol d t hatthe B oar d pr oper l yi nt erpr et ed s ect i on 1101( a) ( 43) ( D ) as i nvi t i ng i nves t i gat i on i nt o t he fa ct s under l y i ng a part i cul arconvi ct i on. III . W e nextcons i derw hetherthe B oar d w as corr ectt o fi nd thats uffi ci entevi dence w as pr es ent ed i n t hi s cas e t o det erm i ne thatthe cons pi r acyof w hi ch M unez- M or al es w as a partactual l yl aunder ed more than $10, 000. T o pr ove thatM unez- M or al es i s r emovabl e, th e g o v e rn m e n t m u s t o f f e r s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to m e e t a “ c le a r a n d c o n v in c in g ” s ta n d a rd . 8 U . S. C . § 1229a( c) ( 3) ( A ) . T he Supr eme C our thas r ej ect ed anyart i fi ci al l i m i ton the12

evi dent i arys our ces t o w hi ch the courtcan l ook i n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe governm ent h a s c a rr ie d th is b u rd e n . Ni j haw an , 129 S. C t . at2302- 03 ( r ej ect i ng s ugges t ed l i m i t at i on of s our ces t o char gi ng document s , j uryi ns truct i ons , s peci al j uryfi ndi ngs , j udge- m ade fi ndi ngs , w r i t t en pl ea doc um ent s , and pl ea c ol l oquy ) . T hus , the I m m i gr at i on J udge, t he B o a rd , an d th is c o u rt a re a ll en tit led to lo o k to a n ye v id e n c e p ro p e rlyo f re c o rd to det erm i ne the amountof funds l aunder ed bythe cons pi r at or s . T hi s evi dence i ncl udes b o th th e p re -s e n te n c in g re p o rt a n d a n yf a c tu a l f in d in g s m a d e b yth e s e n te n c in g ju d g e . A laka , 456 F. 3d at106 ( fi ndi ng no err orbythe I m m i gr at i on J udge i n cons i der i ng the expl i ci ts ent enci ng fi ndi ngs of the s ent enci ng j udge, as fur therexpl ai ned i n the p re-sen tenc ing rep o rt ). H er e, the governm entpoi nt s t o tw o pi ece s of evi dence . Fi r s t , ther e i s a s t at ement i n the pre- sent encing i nv est i gati on reportthat “[t ]he U nit ed S t at es est i m at ed the offe nse inv o lved fro m $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 to $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 in lau n d ere d m o n ey . ” T h e p re-sen tenc ing rep o rt us es thi s fi gur e t o det erm i ne the gui del i ne fi ne r ange a s $2, 000 t o $2, 000, 000. Second, dur i ng M unez- M or al es ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng, i n the pr oces s of expl ai ni ng the s ent enci ng g u id e lin e c a lcu latio n s to M u n e z -M o ra les , the se n ten c in g ju d g e sta ted th a t th e p e rm iss ib le r ange of fi nes w as “$2, 000 t o $2 m i l l i on . . . H ave I gotthatfi ne r i ghtori s thathal f a m i l l i on dol l ar s ? It ’ s tw i ce, okay , tw o m i l l i on. ” G i ven the ava i l abi l i tyof a f i ne of $2, 000, 000, and gi ven thatthe maxi m um fi ne ava i l abl e under18 U . S. C . § 1956 i s tw i ce the am ou nt of the laund ered fun ds, the g ov ernm ent ar gu es that the sentenci ng j ud ge m ust13

nece s s ar i l yhave f

ound thatthe cons pi r acyl aunder ed $1, 000, 000 i n funds . T he governm entput s s peci al emphasi s on the fa ctthatthe s ent enci ng j udge found s uffi ci ent i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i tyt o s uppor tthe pr obabl e ac cur acyof the pr e- s ent enci ng r eport . T he governm ental s o not es thatM unez- M or al es di d notobj ectt o the j udge’ s s t at ementthat th e m a x im u m f

in e a v a ilab le w a s $ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . O n th e o th e r h a n d , M u n e z -M o ra les p o in ts o u tth a tth e f

a c t s i n th e p r e - s e n t e n c i n g r e p o r to n l y n e e d t o b e s u p p o r t e d b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , not“cl earand convi nci ng” evi dence , and thatthe s ent enci ng j udge’ s comm ent s aboutthe maxi m um fi ne w er e bas ed s ol el yon the s t at ement s i n t he pr e- s ent enci ng r eport , themsel ves s uppor t ed onl ybya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . A s d iscu ssed ab o v e, th e B o ard p rop erlyco n side red b o th the p re-sen tenc ing rep o rt a n d th e f a c tu a l f in d in g s m a d e b yth e se n ten c in g ju d g e . T h e re m a in in g q u e stio n th u s is w hetherthe fi ndi ngs of the j udge and the pr e- s ent enci ng r eport , t aken t ogether , s at i s fyt he

“ c lea r a n d c o n v in c in g ” sta n d a rd n e c e ss a ryto f in d M u n e z -M o ra les re m o v a b le. W e n o te fi r s tthatM unez- M or al es i s corr ectthatthe s t at ement s i n the pr e- s ent enci ng r eportneed o n ly b e s u p p o rt e d b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . U

n itedS ta tes v . W

a tts , 51 9 U. S. 148, 156- 57 ( 1997) . B utw e di s agr ee w i th M unez- M or al es thatthi s nece s s ar i l ym eans thatanyfi ndi ng bythe s ent enci ng j udge bas ed on the s t at ement s i n the pr e- s ent enci ng r eportcan s at i s fyonl ythe pr eponder ance - of- the- evi dence s t andar d. M unez- M or al es and his cou nsel had an o pp ortun i tybefo re the sentenci ng heari ng t o revi ew and propo se14

change s t o t he pr e- s ent enci ng r eport , and none of thei rpr opos ed cha nges r el at ed t o the a m o u n t o f

m o n e ylau n d e re d b yth e c o n sp ira to rs. M u n e z -M o ra les a n d h is c o u n se l ag a in had an opportuni tyatthe s ent enci ng hear i ng t o obj ectt o the cont ent s of the pr es ent enci ng r eportand t o the s ent enci ng j udge’ s adopt i on of the pr e- s ent enci ng r eportas hi s fi ndi ngs of fa ct . T heym ade no obj ect i on. D ur i ng the pr ocee di ngs befor e the s ent enci ng j udge, the I m m i gr at i on J udge, the B oar d, and thi s court , M unez- M or al es has neverpr oduced ori ndi cat ed the exi s t ence of anyevi dence thatcontr adi ct s the s t at ement i n the pr e- s ent enci ng r eportthatbetw een $400, 000 and $1, 000, 000 w as l aunder ed byt he cons pi r at or s . G i ven thatM unez- M or al es had ampl e opportuni tyt o obj ectt o anyfac tual fi ndi ngs he cons i der ed i m pr operand fa i l ed t o do s o, and gi ven thatw e have notbeen m ade a w ar e of the exi s t ence of anyotherevi dence thati s al l eged t o contr adi ctthe pr ese n ten c in g re p o rt’s e stim a te th a t o v e r $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 w a s la u n d e re d , w e c a n f in d n o f a u lt w ith the B oar d’ s concl us i on thatther e w as cl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatthe amountof m oneyl aunder ed bythe cons pi r at or s exce eded $10, 000. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l deny M u n e z - M o r a l e s ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.