Opinion ID: 548379
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Criminal Information

Text: 8 Mourning challenges the sufficiency of the criminal information and the factual basis to support his conviction and sentence. He asserts that an essential element of the punishment statute applied to him was omitted from the charging instrument and was neither pleaded nor proven before the district court. 9 Section 5322 sets out the criminal penalties for violations of the money laundering statutes. Section 5322(a) provides in pertinent part that [a] person willfully violating this subchapter or a regulation prescribed under this subchapter ... shall be fined not more than $250,000, or imprison[ed for] not more than five years, or both. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5322(a). Section 5322(b), to which Mourning pleaded guilty, provides in pertinent part that [a] person willfully violating this subchapter or a regulation prescribed under this subchapter ... while violating another law of the United States or as part of a pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period, shall be fined not more than $500,000, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5322(b) (emphasis added). 10 Mourning argues that neither the information nor the factual basis demonstrate a concurrent violation of another law or any pattern of illegal activity placing his conduct within the ambit of 5322(b). Therefore, he contends that he can only be subject to the five-year maximum sentence provided under section 5322(a). Mourning raises the issue for the first time in his supplemental brief. We adhere to the rule that issues raised for the first time on appeal 'are not reviewable by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice.'  United States v. Garcia-Pillado, 898 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir.1990) (quoting Self v. Blackburn, 751 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir.1985). 11 Mourning's argument presents a mixed question of law and fact. To the extent this challenge presents a question of law, e.g. whether section 5322(b) covers his admitted actions, we note that Mourning intended to plead guilty to a violation punishable under section 5322(b). He never raised any contention in the district court while that court still had the case under its jurisdiction or to then express [his] dissatisfaction with the sentence. Id. Since this case will be remanded, there clearly is no manifest injustice in treating him as bound by his plea agreement on the present appeal. 12 To the extent this challenge presents a question of fact, e.g. whether he concurrently violated another law during his money laundering scheme, it is foreclosed. Had Mourning challenged the factual basis for the plea in the district court, that court could have made factual findings on this issue. We could then review those findings. Mourning requests that we restrict the district court upon remand to a sentence not exceeding five years. We refuse to do so. This issue is not properly before us. On remand, the district court is not foreclosed from considering the issue. 13 We note that application of section 5322(b) is not inapposite. A portion of the PSI to which Mourning did not object states that he was aware that this large sum of money was directly related to illegal drug activities and that what he did was wrong and illegal. The district court could find that his conduct fell within the charging instrument. 14