Opinion ID: 576663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sanchez's Appeal

Text: 19 The jury found Sanchez guilty, among other things, of money laundering, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. To prove money laundering, the Government must show that the defendant 1) conducted or attempted to conduct a financial transaction, 2) which the defendant knew involved the proceeds of unlawful activity, 3) with the intent to promote or further unlawful activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1); United States v. Munoz-Romo, 947 F.2d 170, 178 (5th Cir.1991). The statute defines financial transaction as a transaction (i) involving the movement of funds by wire or other means or (ii) involving one or more monetary instruments, which in any way or degree affects interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(4)(A). The term transaction means a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, or other disposition. Id. § 1956(c)(3). 20 The Government's evidence against Sanchez tends to show that Sanchez was part of a drug trafficking ring. From this, the jury could infer that the money found at 5403 Arizona represented proceeds from illegal activity. The Government, however, failed to show Sanchez's involvement in a financial transaction involving the proceeds. The agents found the money secreted in a shoe box in a closet of a house belonging to Sanchez's brother. Assuming that this evidence establishes Sanchez's actual or constructive possession of the funds, it does not allow the inference that Sanchez transferred, delivered, moved, or otherwise disposed of the money as required by statute. We therefore reverse Sanchez's conviction of money laundering. 21 Sanchez's money laundering conviction carried a 240-month sentence. For each of the other counts, Sanchez received 324-month sentences. All three were to run concurrently. Sanchez's penalty so exceeded those of the other defendants that the sentencing judge described it as excessive. The judge, however, believed that a downward departure from the sentence was impermissible considering the facts of the case and the circumstances. By reversing Sanchez's money laundering conviction, we have altered the circumstances considerably. We therefore must allow the judge to reevaluate Sanchez's punishment in light of the reversal. 22 Accordingly, we REVERSE Sanchez's money laundering conviction, and REMAND his case for resentencing. The conviction of Appellant Ramirez is AFFIRMED.