Opinion ID: 609824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Money laundering, Count Seven

Text: 237 Chandler challenges the district court's instruction to the jury on Count Seven and seeks the reversal of his conviction. Count Seven charged Chandler with money laundering through the purchase of real estate in Cleburne County, Alabama. Count Eight charged Chandler with money laundering through the purchase of real estate in Calhoun County, Alabama. Chandler argues that the court charged the jury twice on Count Eight and did not charge the jury on Count Seven. 238 During the jury instructions, the district court incorrectly stated that the property charged in Count Seven was located in Calhoun County, Alabama. Shortly thereafter, the court correctly stated that the property was located in Cleburne County. The district court also instructed the jury that Count Eight was an identical-type offense as Count Seven except that the date was different and the property in Count Eight was in Calhoun County rather than Cleburne County. Significantly, the district court gave the jury a copy of the indictment, which accurately identified the property locations. 239 Chandler failed to object to the district court's instruction. Hence, the district court's error is reviewed for plain error. Given the district court's subsequent correct statement of the property's location and the fact that the jury received a copy of the indictment, the district court's instruction was not erroneous.