Legal Document

128 S. Ct. 1994 (2008) Humberto Fidel Regalado CUELLAR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. No. 06-1456. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 25, 2008. Decided June 2, *1997 Jerry V. Beard, Fort Worth, TX, for petitioner. Lisa H. Schertler, Washington, D.C., respondent. Jonathan D. Hacker, Harvard Law School And Appellate Advocacy Clinic, Cambridge, MA, Walter Dellinger, Mark Davies, Shannon M. Pazur, Susan Moss, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Richard Alan Anderson, Counsel Record, Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender's Office Northern District Texas, Petitioner. Paul Clement, Solicitor General, Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy to the Gershowitz, Attorney, Department Justice, Justice THOMAS delivered opinion Court. This case involves provision federal money laundering statute that prohibits international transportation proceeds unlawful activity. Petitioner argues his conviction cannot stand because, while evidence demonstrates he took steps hide illicit funds en route Mexico, it does not show cross-border transport those was designed create appearance legitimate wealth. Although we agree with Government require proof defendant attempted "legitimize" tainted funds, petitioner must demonstrate did more than merely during its transport. We therefore reverse judgment Fifth Circuit. I On July 14, 2004, Cuellar stopped in southern Texas driving erratically. Driving south toward Mexican border, about 114 miles away, had just passed town Eldorado. In response officer's questions, petitioner, who spoke no English, handed officer a stack papers. Included were bus tickets showing travel from border San Antonio on 13 and, other direction, Big Spring, 14. A Spanish-speaking officer, Trooper Danny Nuñez, called scene and began questioning Nuñez soon became suspicious because avoiding eye contact seemed very nervous. claimed be 3-day business trip, but luggage or extra clothing him, gave conflicting accounts itinerary. When *1998 asked bulge shirt pocket, produced wad cash smelled marijuana. consented search Volkswagen Beetle driving. While officers searching vehicle, observed standing side road making sign cross, which interpreted mean knew trouble. drug detection dog alerted petitioner's pocket rear area car. Further scrutiny uncovered secret compartment under floorboard, inside found approximately $81,000 cash. The bundled plastic bags duct tape, animal hair spread vehicle. previously transported goats doubted could fit such small space suspected been an attempt mask smell There signs recently created someone cover up bodywork: Beetle's carpeting appeared newer rest interior, exterior vehicle have purposely splashed mud toolmarks, fresh paint, work. backseat, fast-food restaurant receipt dated same day city farther north traveled. After check last crossing also proved inconsistent story, arrested interrogated. He continued tell stories travels. At one point, before cash, remarked car Mexico by midnight else family would "floating down river." App. 50. charged attempting activity across knowing "to conceal disguise nature, location, source, ownership, control" money. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). 2-day trial, jury guilty. denied motion acquittal based insufficient sentenced 78 months prison, followed three years supervised release. appeal, divided panel Circuit reversed rendered acquittal. 441 F.3d 329 (2006). Judge Smith's majority held that, although showed concealed purpose transporting it, requires itself proceeds. Id., at 333-334. Analogizing cases interpreting another statute, court undertaken wealth.[1] See id., *1999 334. intent avoid intended wealth, accordingly rational trier fact Ibid. Davis dissented, arguing concealment is sufficient violate 334-336. granted rehearing banc affirmed conviction. 478 282 (2007). rejected as statutory text argument prove 290. But extensive efforts prevent sought control funds. 289-290. Smith dissented largely reasons set forth original majority. emphasized distinction between "concealing something it," explained whether doing latter depended ultimate plan upon reaching destination 296-297. certiorari, 552 U.S. ___, 436, 169 L. Ed. 2d 304 II 1956, specified transfers derived activities. Subsection (a)(1) makes engage certain financial transactions, subsection (a)(2) criminalizes kinds transportation. provision: indictment alleged "knowing whole part funds.[2] 10-11 (citing 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)). *2000 first consider "designed ... conceal" element. satisfy this element, replace "designed... proceeds" wealth." consistent plain meaning "money laundering," argues, term commonly understood disguising illegally obtained order make appear legitimate. view, common understanding laundering" implicit both transaction provisions concealing any listed attributes necessarily effect legitimate, conversely, revealing attribute reveal illicit. disagrees, contending way accomplish laundering, funds' nature. event, should cabined target only classic Congress reach conduct impairs ability law enforcement find recover taking laundering." American Heritage Dictionary 992 (4th ed.2000) (hereinafter Am. Hert.) (defining "launder" "[t]o source nature (illegal example) channeling through intermediate agent"); Black's 1027 (8th ed.2004) Black's) "money-laundering" "[t]he act transferring people so traced"). extent they are inconsistent, guided words operative provision, statute's title. Pennsylvania Dept. Corrections Yeskey, 524 206, 212, 118 1952, 141 215 (1998) (declining use title limit text). Here, used broad language captures laundering: addition illegal For example, smuggles into hiding authorities burying desert may engaged location Nor do persuasive infuse "classic requirement attributes. *2001 Contrary argument, attributesnature, controlwould expose illegitimacy Digging buried desert, Indeed, all attributes, "nature" coextensive illegitimate character: Exposing would, definition, them statute; creation wealth swallow likewise skeptical violating elements before. It true legitimatelargely might impede enforcement's identify fundsbut convinced so. possible without creating Cf. States Abbell, 271 1286, 1298 (C.A.11 2001) (noting punish "attemp[t] legitimize their proceeds," satisfied particular so). Petitioner's "appearance wealth" simply has basis provision's text. aimed secretive already punished bulk smuggling 31 5332 (2000 ed., Supp. V). disagree. comparison reveals even if exists 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), two statutes nonetheless distinct conduct. encompasses, relevant part, who, "with evade currency reporting section 5316, knowingly conceals $10,000 monetary instruments transports attempts transfer place within outside States." 5332(a)(1). To sure, fall statutes. violated intends requirement. 5332(a)(1) (transportation requirement"); 1956(a)(2)(B)(ii) requirement"). absence intent. 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) (prohibiting attribute). Similarly, encompass punishes mere lawfully proceeds.[3] Compare *2002 5332(a) (omitting unlawfully derived) 1956(a)(2)(B) (requiring "kno[w] instrument involved represent some form activity"). B Having concluded contains requirement, next sustain As noted, convicted which, crime "funds to... activity." Accordingly, required (1) (2) these "represent[ed] activity," e.g., trafficking, (3) "such transportation" "conceal issue us, viz., connection, important keep mind critical country border. Instead, means "from States"here, Mexico. Therefore, what "designed," least "nature," "location," "source," "ownership," "control." Citing interpret identical phrase exclude "mere spending,"[4] hiding." Otherwise, contends, regularly minimal money, placing wallet receptacle, secure travel. responds element circumstantial *2003 transportationi.e., "design"is standard criminalize cases,[5] encompasses substantial concealment. result, agrees Appeals violation established solely carried conventional incidental way. F.3d, 291 (characterizing defendant's box Dimeck, 24 1239, 1246 (C.A.10 1994), "minimal concealment" distinguishable "effort funds). expended Our conclusion turns particularly "design." context, "design" plan; i.e., aim Hert. 491 ("To formulate for; devise"; contrive effect"); ("A scheme"; "[p]urpose intention combined plan"); see Brief 14 ("`to conceive out mind'" (quoting Webster's Third New International 611 (1993))). wrote disguise" when to" something, most natural reading purpose. employed design referred "transportation get country." 289. went discuss different sense. described packaging placement hidden compartment, scent "aspects "were (emphasis added). Because refer manner out, context alternate structure arrangement. 491, 492 systematic, usually graphic form"; purposeful inventive arrangement parts details"); ("The pattern configuration work art"). times appears adopt 21 ("Congress focused how `designed'"); 43 (arguing move *2004 funds).[6] If meaning, apply whenever person manner. supplied example construction: petty thief hides shoe then walks spend local bars, 301 (dissenting opinion), unlikely place. think implausible, however, had, expressed writing disguises," rather complex formulation transportation... disguise." seems far likely courts familiar criminal concepts focus exclusively "structured" addition, structural overinclusive underinclusive: capture individuals structured lacked (such hid turn over enforcement); yet fully failed often related. One employ achieve purpose: being detected crosses (Smith, J., dissenting). suggest another, secretively suggests, least, want case, methods nearly cashbundled covered hairwas plainly probative underlying goal drove aspects step larger facilitate 289 "concealment *2005 leg trip [was] vital country"). force, weak. "There difference 296-297 dissenting); is, moves why Evidence former, alone, latter. illustrates why: Even abundant Government's own expert witness ICE Agent Nucklestestified compensate leaders operation.[7] Tr. 179 (Oct. 12, 2004), 64-65 ("[T]he [the money] generally goes back smuggler originated entire process. He's going large cut profit, moved him Mexico"). suggested transportation, plan"), secrecy Nuckles testified smuggling, 179-180, 65-66, introduce reason smugglers Acuna, headed, economy widely accepted there. 188-189, 69. apparently viewed it: "[G]iven Mexico's economy, [petitioner] successfully detection, entitled better concealable after before." 292. clear, purposenot effectof attribute. instance, there effect.[8] *2006 sum, conclude introduced permit reasonable beyond doubt proceeds." III neither can thus stand. ordered. ALITO, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE KENNEDY join, concurring. join write briefly summarize my deficiency proof. notes, ante, 2002, Transporting achieving objective if, once made harder ascertain ("nature"), ("location"), determine where came ("source"), (4) owned ("ownership"), (5) controlled ("control"). 2005, prosecution prove, effects, ibid., effects (i.e., purpose) n. 8, inferred. knowledge persons "designed" showing, "dirty" noted above, known circles (that among carry transportation," 1956(a)(2)(B)) above. Such infer taken question like recruited funds) design. *2007 Of course, evidence, defense countered available achievement know plan. decide adequately proven. regarding pointed record inferred effects. reason, sustained. NOTES [1] Several Courts considered relevant, necessary, 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), prohibits, inter alia, engaging transactions "involv[ing] Morales-Rodriguez, 467 1, (C.A.1 2006); Esterman, 324 565, 572-573 (C.A.7 2003); 2001); McGahee, 257 520, 527-528 (C.A.6 Dobbs, 63 391, 397 (C.A.5 1995); 1247 1994). construing convicted, four Appeals, including Circuit, implicitly explicitly Garcia-Jaimes, 484 1311, 1322 2007) (upholding convictions conspiracy commit addressing requirement); Ness, 466 79, 81-82 (C.A.2 2006) (rejecting upholding elaborate highly secretive); Carr, 25 1194, 1206-1207 (C.A.3 1994) discussing requirement). [2] reads, entirety: "Whoever transports, transmits, transfers, transport, transmit, States "(A) promote carrying activity; "(B) transmission, part "(i) "(ii) State law, "shall fine $500,000 twice value whichever greater, imprisonment twenty years, both. offense subparagraph (B), represented matter (B) true, subsequent statements actions indicate believed representations true." [3] Section 1956(a)(2)(A) proceeds, imposes additional V), "inten[ded] [4] See, 570-572; Corchado-Peralta, 318 255, 259 527; Herron, 97 234, 237 (C.A.8 1996); Majors, 196 1206, 1213 1999); Stephenson, 183 110, 120-121 398; Garcia-Emanuel, 1469, 1474 [5] 81 (concluding support 1956(a)(1), "express[ing] view" involving "less stratagems lesser measure secrecy" sufficient); Johnson, 440 1291 ("Evidence substantial"); Detroit California box, suitcase, container convert laundering"). [6] statute. 46 covers "surreptitiou[s]" movement impaired detecting intercepting them," regardless impairment plan); 11 ("When surreptitiously character, appropriate charge"); covers, cover, wide range crime"); Oral Arg. 46. Nuckles, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), adopted trial well. 2004) (testifying illegal, [7] Concealing need purposes (providing "in part" disguise). here, compensating operation testified. [8] many cases, direct instead shown circumstantially inferences drawn effect. 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal 5.2(a), p. 341 (2d ed.2003). Specifically, consequences action known, will acted bringing about. Although,

Classification Label: 0