FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 31, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 64 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 03 61 -RWS-AJB- 10 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us EDUARDO JAVIER BERNAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 31 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Edu ard o J av ie r Berna l ap pe al s h is 78 -m on th to ta l s en te nc e im po se d a fte r he en te redanop enpl ea t o o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to c omm itm on ey lau nd eri ng , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( h) , andon e co un t o f m on ey lau nd eri ng , invi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( a)(2 )(A). Berna l co nt en ds th ere was no ev id en ce h e kne w th e m on ey he was t raff

ic ki ng was fr om

dru gs , th eref

or e m ak in g asen te nc in g en ha nc em en t as so ci at edwith s uc h kno wled ge in ap pr op ria te .
“ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es de no vo an d i ts fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Dema rest , 57 0 F .3d 12 32 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Sect io n 2 S1 .1(b )(1 ) of th e U.S.S.G. pro vi de s fo r a 6 -le ve l en hanc em en t i f “ th e d efen da ntkn ew or be li ev ed th atan y of t he lau nd eredfun ds were the pro ceed s o f, orwere i nt en de d t o p ro m ot e . . . an o ffen se in vo lv in g t he m anuf actur e, im po rta ti on , or d is tri bu ti on of a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e . . . .” W e h av e uph el d t he ap pl ic at io n o f th e § 2S 1.1 (b )(1 ) en ha nc em en t i n acas e whe re a yachtbro ke r arra ng edfor th e sa le of ay ach t, i n a n al l-c as h t ran sa ct io n, t o b uyers wh o c la im edto be ass oc ia te d wi th dru gs an d wer e li ke ly to u se th e y ach t t o s m ug gl e dru gs . Demar es t , 57 0 F .3dat 1 24 3. In ad di ti on , we ha ve he lda reas on ab le jury can in fer tha t a d efen da ntwou ldno t b e en tru st ed with aba g c on ta in in g m il li on s o f do ll ars wort h o f drug s wi th ou t kno win g wh atth e ba g c on ta in ed . Uni te d Sta tes v. McDo wel l , 25 0 F .3d13 54 , 13 66 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ); 2se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. Qu il ca -Ca rp io , 11 8 F .3d71 9, 7 22 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )

(s ta ti ng a “ ‘pru de ntsm

ug gl er’ is no t l ik el y

to en tru stsu chva lu ab le carg o t o a n in no cen t p ers on witho utth atpe rs on ’s kn owl ed ge .”). The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err b y fin di ng th ere wer e su ffi ci en t fa ct s t o im po se th e en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2S 1.1 (b )(1 ). Bern al rece iv eda la rg e su m of m on ey , ov er $ 1 m il li on , un li ke ly to b e en tru st edto anun kn owi ng co ur ie r, un de r se cret iv e ci rcu m st an ces . He was i ns tru ct edto de li ve r th e m on ey to Lared o, Tex as , a to wn o n t he bo rd er o f Mex ic o. He s ug ge st edhe m ig htbe ki ll edov er the lo ss of th e m on ey

aft er i ts sei zure, an d a sk edfora bu nd le of m on ey “ to run on .” He als o te st ifi edhe kn ew th e m on ey was fr om

so m e fo rm

of i ll eg al act iv it y , andth e ci rcu m st an ces of thi s ca se fav or edna rco ti cs ov er o th er p os si bl e ex pl an at io ns . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

Bern al ’s sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

3