Opinion ID: 195655
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: separate challenges raised by appellant neal

Text: A. Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Guilty Verdict on Counts Alleging Accessory After The Fact and Money Laundering Appellant Neal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the jury's guilty verdicts on Counts 30 and 31.27 This Court finds that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, together with all legitimate inferences, was of such a quantum that a reasonable trier of fact could find Neal guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.28 United States v. Browne, 891 F.2d 389, 393 (1st 27 Count 30, alleging accessory after the fact in violation of title 18 U.S.C. 3, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant (1) knew an offense had been committed against the United States; and (2) receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment . . . . Count 31, alleging money laundering in violation of title 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knew that: the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity [and] conducts such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part, to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity . . . . 28 The evidence consisted, in part, of testimony indicating that Neal was at his home on several occasions when co-conspirators met to discuss the bank robbery and to make final preparations for committing the crime. The co-conspirators took refuge in Neal's home immediately following the robbery with a reasonable inference from the testimony being that Neal opened his cellar door to let them in. Neal followed Flynn's instructions to go out and get the box of money out of the car, with the box also containing the gun used in the robbery. Tr. (October 14, 1992) -49- Cir. 1989). B. Court's Denial of Motion for Downward Adjustment of Base Offense Level Neal challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a downward adjustment of his Base Offense Level pursuant to section 3B1.2(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(a). That section of the Guidelines provides for a four-level reduction where the court determines that a defendant was a minimal participant in the offense for which he was convicted and is intended to cover only those defendants who are clearly the least culpable of those involved in the criminal conduct of the group. See U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(a), comment nn. 1 & 2. Absent a mistake of law, a district court's finding as to whether a defendant was a minor or minimal participant will be reversed only if clearly erroneous. United States v. Brum, 948 F.2d 817 (1st Cir. 1991). Here, the court's determination was not clearly erroneous and we affirm. Neal mistakenly refers to the overall conspiracy encompassing five robberies as the benchmark for arguing that he played a minimal role. But section 3B1.2 focuses on the role of a defendant with respect to the offense(s) of at 40. Neal was given between $2000-$5000 as his split from the proceeds of the robbery. Flynn later furnished him with additional money from the robbery to pay off hundreds of dollars in parking tickets and to purchase a car in his name to be used by Flynn and Kenney to drive to Arizona and eventually to California. A friend of Neal's testified that he told her he had won the money used to purchase the car by betting on football games and had purchased the car with the intention of letting a friend use it for a week or so. -50- which he was convicted. Here, Neal was convicted of money laundering and being an accessory after the fact. He was the only defendant indicted and convicted on the count of being an accessory after the fact and was indicted and convicted jointly with Flynn on the money laundering count. The facts support the court's determination that Neal did not play a minimal role with respect to the conduct alleged in either count.