Opinion ID: 794577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Carl Alexander

Text: 40 Alexander argues in his pro se supplemental brief that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of engaging in monetary transactions derived from specified unlawful activity. We disagree. A conviction under § 1957 requires a showing (1) that the defendant knowingly engaged in a monetary transaction, (2) that the defendant knew the property involved derived from specified unlawful activity, and (3) that the property was of a value greater than $10,000. United States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707, 722 (8th Cir.2005). The same evidence that supports his conspiracy to commit wire fraud conviction supports this conviction. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction. 41 Having reviewed the statute of limitations argument raised in Alexander's pro se supplemental brief, we conclude that it is without merit and warrants no further discussion.