Court Opinion

ID: 9493973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:25:14.145752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:08.658085
License: Public Domain

COLLIER, District Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in parts II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.D.2 of the majority’s well-reasoned and well-written decision. I write separately to explain more completely my concurrence in part II.D.l, and because I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding in part II.D.3 with respect to the money laundering counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). I agree with the facts and the law as set forth in the majority’s opinion; however, I disagree with their conclusion “no rational trier of fact could convict Marshall of violating § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i)” on the basis of the evidence presented at trial.
I. Marshall’s Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. 2113(c)
I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Marshall’s conviction, pursuant to section 2113(c), for receiving or possessing stolen goods, should be vacated and remanded for dismissal by the district court. I believe, however, that further explanation of the reasoning behind this result will prove helpful in the future to courts addressing this question. As stated earlier by the majority, in United States v. Gaddis, 424 U.S. 544, 96 S.Ct. 1023, 47 L.Ed.2d 222 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held “[A] person convicted of robbing a bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (b), and (d), cannot also be convicted of receiving or possessing the proceeds of that robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e).” Id. at 547, 96 S.Ct. at 1026. “Receipt or possession of the proceeds of a bank robbery in violation of *543§ 2113(c) is simply not a lesser included offense within the total framework of the bank robbery provisions of § 2113. Rather, § 2113(c) reaches a ‘different group of wrongdoers,’ ie., ‘those who receive the loot from the robber.’ ” Id. 548, 96 S.Ct. 1023. The rule enunciated in Gaddis, when applied to the facts of this case, thus precludes Marshall’s conviction on both Counts 1 and 2. He should only have been convicted of one or the other.
The Gaddis Court further held, where the evidence introduced at trial was clearly insufficient to support a conviction under section 2113(c), but was adequate with regard to the theft conviction, the appropriate remedy on appeal was simple vacatur of the section 2113(c) conviction. The theft conviction could be allowed to stand. Id. at 549-550, 96 S.Ct. 1023. Gaddis did not, however, overrule Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 81 S.Ct. 728, 5 L.Ed.2d 773 (1961), in which the Supreme Court held both the theft conviction and the receipt or possession conviction should be vacated where the evidence would only support a conviction on one count or the other, but not both. Id. at 549, 96 S.Ct. at 1027.
In United States v. Moore, 616 F.2d 1030 (7th Cir.1980), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit provided a helpful clarification of Gaddis, indicating Gaddis, rather than Milanovich, would provide the appropriate remedy in most cases presenting this issue. In Moore, the Seventh Circuit was faced with a situation where “the evidence was ample to sustain a conviction on both counts” of theft and possession of United States Postal Service funds. Id. at 1031. The Seventh Circuit did not, however, think a new trial was warranted under the circumstances:
There is no reason to require a new trial under the circumstances present in this case. By its verdict the jury found on the basis of adequate evidence that Moore robbed the postal employee and later had pieces of mail from the robbery in his possession. These findings are of course perfectly consistent with one another. The reason they will not support convictions for both robbery and possession is a legal one: we will not impute to Congress an intention to punish the thief twice. This, obviously, is a reason for vacating the conviction for the possession that inevitably follows the robbery but, equally obviously, not for requiring a new trial.
Id. at 1032 (citations and footnote omitted). In reaching that holding, the Seventh Circuit distinguished Milanovich:
Moore relies upon Milanovich v. United States, supra, in which the Supreme Court did order a new trial after holding that robbery and possession offenses could not be cumulated. 365 U.S. at 554-56, 81 S.Ct. at 729-30. In his opinion for the Court in United States v. Gaddis, 424 U.S. 544, 548-49, 96 S.Ct. 1023, 1026-1027, 47 L.Ed.2d 222 (1976), the author of Milanovich, Justice Stewart, described it as having “very unusual facts” and distinguished it. In a concurring opinion, Justice White, joined by the Chief Justice, stated that he did “not read the Court’s opinion as reaffirming, in addition to describing, the Milanovich rule that a new trial is required when (1) a jury is erroneously permitted to convict a defendant both of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (b), or (d), and of knowing possession of the proceeds of that robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c), and (2) there is evidence to support both convictions.” Id. at 551, 96 S.Ct. at 1028. He also pointed out that if the jury is erroneously allowed to consider and convict on the possession count after having decided to convict on the robbery *544count, the conviction for possession “casts absolutely no doubt on the validity of the robbery conviction,” and a new trial should not be required. Id. at 551-53, 96 S.Ct. at 1028. Justice Stewart did not disclaim Justice White’s interpretation of the majority opinion.

Id.

In Gentry v. United States, 533 F.2d 998, 999-1000 (6th Cir.1976), a panel of this Court, applying Gaddis, held the petitioner’s dual convictions for both bank robbery and receipt or possession of stolen bank property could not be allowed to stand even where the dual convictions had no impact at sentencing because the sentences imposed on each count were to be run concurrently: “Although Gentry has not shown specific adverse consequences which might arise if his conviction and sentence on the possession charge are not set aside, we note that ‘It is well understood that a multiplicity of sentences impairs a prisoner’s opportunities for pardon or parole.’ ” Id., (citing Hibdon v. United States, 204 F.2d 834, 839 (6th Cir.1953); and United States v. Machibroda, 338 F.2d 947, 949 (6th Cir.1964)). The eviden-tiary foundation for the defendant’s convictions in Gentry was similar to that present here:
Upon the trial of the case the evidence reflected most clearly that upon December 3, 1971, the petitioner and his co-defendant, Clayton, using a stolen automobile, armed with shotguns, and wearing ski masks, robbed at gun point a bank security officer of - $194,200.00 as the officer was in the process of delivering cash to the bank. Upon January 10, 1972, search warrants led to the recovery of $88,100.00 of the proceeds of the robbery from the petitioner’s home and the recovery of $84,000.00 of the proceeds of the robbery from the home of the co-defendant, Clayton, together with the weapons and other paraphernalia used in the robbery. The jury returned a verdict finding all defendants guilty as charged in each of the two counts of the indictment.
Gentry v. United States, 386 F.Supp. 1126, 1127-28 (E.D.Tenn.1974). The evidence was therefore sufficient to establish both Gentry’s participation in the theft, as well as his subsequent possession of stolen property. On appeal, the panel held the error entitled him to vacatur of his conviction under section 2113(c) but did not justify a new trial on both the robbery and the receipt and possession counts:
We find Gaddis controlling with regard to Gentry’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial under Milanovich, supra. As in Gaddis, the evidence showed that Gentry was a direct participant in the bank robbery and there is no evidence that he received the proceeds from a different bank robber. Thus the error of the district judge in allowing him to be convicted for violation of § 2113(c) can be fully corrected by vacating that conviction, and his conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) for armed robbery must stand.
Gentry, 533 F.2d at 999.
In this case, the evidence submitted at trial was sufficient to support Marshall’s convictions under both Counts 1 and 2. The evidence on both counts is also consistent, i.e., a reasonable jury could believe both that Marshall was the burglar and that he later possessed or concealed the stolen funds. If the evidence presented at trial had been mutually exclusive with respect to these two counts, that is, if a •reasonable juror could not have found Marshall was the thief without also ruling out the possibility he was the subsequent receiver or possessor, then only a new trial would correct the substantive error. Here, however, Marshall’s erroneous con*545viction on Count 2 does nothing to cast doubt on his larceny conviction. Consequently, the appropriate remedy in this case, according to the rule announced in Gaddis as interpreted in Gentry and Moore, is vacatur of the section 2113(c) conviction (Count 2), rather than remand for a new trial on Counts 1 and 2.
II. Marshall’s Convictions Under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i)
I do not disagree with the facts and the law as set forth in the portion of the majority’s opinion dealing with Marshall’s money laundering convictions. Where I part company with the majority is in the relative significance I believe should be placed on the absence of evidence indicating an intent, on Marshall’s part, to conceal his identity at the time each of the disputed transactions was consummated, and on whether those transactions were ordinary commercial transactions or investments.1 Although Appellant emphasizes in his brief the absence of evidence indicating an intent to conceal his identity, I do not believe it is dispositive here.
On appeal, Marshall claims the evidence presented during his trial was insufficient to support his three convictions for money laundering. I find it necessary at this point to reiterate the standard of review to be applied in this context. An appellate court reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial must determine whether, viewing the trial testimony and exhibits in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The appellate court may not re-weigh the evidence, reevaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute its judgment for that of the jury. United States v. Hilliard, 11 F.3d 618, 620 (6th Cir.1993). Most importantly, the reviewing court must look at the evidence as a whole. Powers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 83 F.3d 789, 797 (6th Cir.1996) (holding jury verdict must be examined in light of entire record when determining whether it may be allowed to stand).
Marshall was convicted on Counts 4, 5, and 6 with money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)®:
Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct 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 *546specified unlawful activity ... shall be [guilty of a crime].
The underlying conduct for Count 3 is Marshall’s purchase of the Rolex. Count 4 stems out of his purchase of the diamond tennis bracelet, and Count 5 involves his purchase of the wine. The majority has correctly stated the three essential elements of the crime:
(1) use of funds that are proceeds of unlawful activity;
(2) knowledge that the funds are proceeds of unlawful activity; and
(3) conducting or attempting to conduct a financial transaction, knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the proceeds.
United States v. Prince, 214 F.3d 740, 747 (6th Cir.2000). I agree with my fellow panelists that the first two elements are not at issue here. Rather, Marshall’s challenge to these convictions asserts a lack of evidence pertaining to the third element, intent to conceal or disguise.
After viewing the evidence presented at trial as a whole, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, I have concluded, and a jury could have found, the record would support a finding on the third element beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact Marshall chose not to conceal his identity from those whom he made the purchases, although a relevant consideration, is not dis-positive. In response to an argument similar to that presented by Appellant here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Norman, 143 F.3d 375 (8th Cir.1998), a case cited by the majority, stated:
The statute does not require that there be any intention or design to conceal the identity of the person dealing with the property. It requires, instead, that a defendant know 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. There is no contention that the money used to buy the car was not the proceeds of specified unlawful activity. The contention is, rather, that there was no proof that Norman intended to disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the money. We disagree. The point is not whether the seller of the car is deceived as to who Norman was, but rather that by changing the proceeds of unlawful activity from the form of money (or, more properly, a bank account) — through the use of other, undisclosed business accounts — into the form of an automobile, Norman made it more difficult for the true owner of the money to trace what had happened to it.
Under our cases, this is sufficient to make out a violation of the statute.
Id. at 377. In this case, the evidence was, in all likelihood, insufficient to allow a conclusion Marshall was motivated by a desire to conceal his own identity during the transactions at issue. The record, however, amply supports a conclusion Marshall engaged in those transactions in an attempt to conceal or disguise his connection with the larceny proceeds from law enforcement, the victim bank and his former employer.
The starting point for my analysis is an examination of the totality of the evidence placed before the jury and the logical inferences the jury could have drawn from that evidence. With this starting point, I do not look at each transaction in isolation. Instead, I see each of the three purchases within the context of all the evidence. Viewed as a whole, the evidence in this case would allow a reasonable juror to conclude Marshall was motivated, from im*547mediately after the robbery until at least August 1994, by a desire to distance himself from the larceny proceeds, that is, to “conceal [and] disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control” of the larceny proceeds. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(B)(i). For example, on January 5, 1994, when Marshall attempted to exchange a large portion of the larceny proceeds into a cashier’s check so he could open a brokerage account in his girlfriend’s name, he encountered suspicion and thorough questioning from the bank teller. He also learned large transactions had to be reported to the federal government.
From this evidence, the jury could have inferred a motive on Marshall’s part to convert the cash into other forms of appreciable assets because he knew if he placed the proceeds in a bank, he might have to answer some uncomfortable questions about the money’s origins. Furthermore, in response to questioning about his identity and the source of the funds, Marshall proceeded to produce his Florida identification, rather than his Ohio license, and informed the teller the money belonged to his step-brother. Months later, in August 1994, when Marshall learned the F.B.I. had been asking questions about the brokerage account, he told his step-brother to make the account “disappear.” Taking into account all the evidence of this nature in the record, I believe a jury could have determined it was probative of the type of “design to conceal” both the assets themselves as well as their illegal origins, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found relevant in United States v. Garcia-Emanuel, 14 F.3d 1469, 1478 (10th Cir.1994), another case cited by the majority. Once the jury reached this conclusion, it could have logically inferred Marshall acted with that design to conceal in the transactions involved here.
In support of its holding, the majority relies in part on the fact Marshall purchased the wine and the diamond bracelet using valid credit cards issued in his own name. Viewing this fact in the light most favorable to the government, however, I think it weighs just as heavily in support of affirming the money laundering convictions. Marshall had enough money in the brokerage account to make the purchases directly. Instead, after using credit cards to make the purchases, Marshall used funds from the brokerage account to pay the credit account balance.
This evidence would have allowed a reasonable jury to conclude Marshall made an effort to place distance between the ill-gotten gains from the larceny and the assets he purchased to replace the cash. See Norman, 143 F.3d at 377 (holding intent to conceal could be inferred by funneling of money through several sources prior to ultimate purchase). Moreover, the use of the credit card created documentary evidence of how he acquired the assets, and the paper trail could be used to mislead an investigator. See Garcia-Emanuel, 14 F.3d at 1476-77 (finding such evidence was probative of intent to conceal and supported money laundering convictions). In the event law enforcement, the bank, or Marshall’s former employer had discovered the purchases or inquired about them, Marshall would have been able to answer he made the purchases with his credit card and to produce credit card receipts to support his story.
Additionally, I am unable to agree with the majority’s characterization of the acquisition of a Rolex watch, a diamond tennis bracelet, and several thousand dollars worth of collectible wine,2 within a relative*548ly short period of the larceny, as a “few isolated purchases of wearable or consumable items” that do not fall within, the purview of § 1956. In each instance, Marshall converted the “dirty” proceeds from the bank robbery into a “clean” asset that could be held for a substantial period of time without significant depreciation in value. A central focus of subsection (a)(1)(B)® is to criminalize the conversion of cash into goods and services as a way of concealing or disguising the wellspring of the cash. See United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832, 841 (7th Cir.1991), cited with approval in United States v. Samour, 9 F.3d 531, 535 (6th Cir.1993), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Reed, 77 F.3d 139 (6th Cir.1996); U.S. v. Norman, 143 F.3d 375, 377 (8th Cir.1998); see also United States v. Cencer, 90 F.3d 1103, 1106 (6th Cir.1996) (holding evidence bar owner used drug proceeds to run his business was sufficient to support money laundering conviction).
Rather than viewing these purchases as “wearable or consumable items” or as “ordinary commercial transactions,” entered into for Marshall’s “present personal benefit,” I believe a jury, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and considering Marshall’s admissions on the stand, could have found the three purchases involved “investments,” of which the Tenth Circuit said in Garcia-Emanuel: “On the one hand, cases involving investments made with illegal proceeds are close to the core of the statute’s purpose of criminalizing changing cash into an ‘ostensibly legitimate form, such as business profits or loans, before using those funds for personal benefit. ... ’ ” 14 F.3d 1474 (emphasis in original).
The evidence adduced at trial indicated Marshall did not purchase the wine for consumption and in fact did not consume the wine immediately, but rather intended to hold it as an investment, as he admitted. The evidence also indicated Marshall had never previously purchased collectible wines. When he purchased the diamond bracelet, Marshall told the store clerk he was buying it for his girlfriend, in whose name he attempted to hide the brokerage account, yet nothing in the record indicates the bracelet was ever given to her. Again, the jury could have concluded, on the basis of the record, that Marshall had never made a similar purchase prior to the bank larceny.
Similarly, in the case of the Rolex watch, no evidence was presented to indicate Marshall had ever purchased such a watch prior to the theft. Although Marshall was seen wearing the watch after the purchase, he was still in a position to deny the relationship between the watch and the larceny proceeds, in part because he used his credit card to buy the watch. Moreover, in light of additional evidence Marshall sought to conceal the source of the watch, by saying it was a gift from his girlfriend, a reasonable juror could have concluded Marshall purchased the watch, along with the other items, with an intent to convert proceeds from the bank larceny into assets not immediately traceable to his crime that could be held for a long period of time and then reconverted into cash when the need arose. Even though the statement was made subsequent to the purchase of the watch, the jury could have concluded the statement was indicative of Marshall’s intent at the time of the transaction.
In reaching a conclusion contrary to the one I reach here, the majority has relied upon two cases in particular, United States *549v. Sanders, 928 F.2d 940 (10th Cir.1991), and the previously cited Garcia-Emanuel. While I do not disagree with the majority’s interpretation of these two cases, I do believe the cases may be distinguished factually in several crucial ways from the case at hand. Significantly, I note Sanders involved a defendant, engaged in an ongoing drug trafficking enterprise, who was convicted of money laundering on the basis of two isolated financial transactions. 928 F.2d at 944, 946; see also United States v. Rockelman, 49 F.3d 418 (8th Cir.1995). In contrast, this case involves a defendant who committed one specified unlawful act, the bank larceny, and then engaged in ongoing efforts over a period of several months to disguise, conceal and use the proceeds of that single crime. Although the money laundering statute is not designed to punish an ongoing course of conduct, the course of conduct may still be relevant to determining a defendant’s intent with regard to a particular transaction. See Sanders, 946 F.2d at n. 4 (distinguishing United States v. Franklin, 902 F.2d 501 (7th Cir.1990) on the basis “defendant’s activities in Franklin involved both a greater quantity of activity and activity of a qualitatively different nature than that presented here.”). Here, I believe the evidence relating to Marshall’s intent with respect to an overall pattern of conduct would allow a reasonable juror to conclude each of the purchases at issue here were designed to conceal the source or origin of the bank larceny proceeds.
Sanders also differs from this case in that the car purchases involved in Sanders were public and conspicuous. See also Rockelman, 49 F.3d at 422. As a result, the transactions were less useful as a means for hiding ill-gotten wealth. Marshall’s purchases, however, involved items that could be easily hidden, transported or stored. Any future transfer of ownership, for the purpose of converting the items back into cash, could also be conducted privately. The circumstances present here are thus more probative of an intent to conceal, than was the situation in Sanders. See Norman, 143 F.3d at 378 (indicating private transactions are more indicative of money laundering than are those of public record).
A final important distinction that can be drawn between this case and the factual scenarios of Sanders and Garcia-Emanuel, is based on the fact each of the transactions at issue here was unique in Marshall’s experience. In Garcia-Emanuel, the court overturned money laundering convictions premised upon the defendant’s payment of his residential mortgage with a cashier’s check drawn in his own name, and his partial cash payment for a thoroughbred horse. Garcia-Emanuel, 14 F.3d at 1476-77. In each instance, the court concluded these were straightforward commercial transactions, entered into for the defendant’s immediate personal benefit, of a type which the defendant had conducted previously. Id. Similarly, in Sanders both automobiles simply replaced older automobiles of the same make already owned by the defendant and his wife. Sanders, 928 F.2d at 945.
Garcia-Emanuel and Sanders therefore involved transactions that were “ordinary” not only because they did not involve any sort of complex financing scheme designed to conceal the purchaser’s true identity, but also because they were of a type the defendants in those cases had conducted in the past. Here in contrast, Marshall had never before made purchases such as the three supporting his money laundering convictions. Although he bought wine from the same merchant previously, he had never purchased collectible wine. The fact Marshall had never conducted similar transactions previously, when viewed in the context of the other evidence discussed *550above, weighs in favor of his convictions on these counts.
I agree with the sentiment, expressed by the Sanders court and the majority in this case, that section 1956 is a money laundering statute, not a “monéy spending statute.” 928 F.2d at 946. Had the evidence only been sufficient to establish Marshall purchased consumables with the larceny proceeds, instead of also supporting a conclusion he was making investments, I would gladly join the majority’s opinion. If the evidence had established Marshall merely made straightforward pin-chases with the larceny proceeds, I would have considered vacating these convictions. I might also have joined in the decision to vacate if the evidence had not established Marshall clearly expressed a desire and intent to conceal or disguise both the larceny proceeds and his connection with them both before and after the purchases. Finally, I might not have dissented in this case if the evidence had not been sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Marshall lied about how he acquired the Rolex and lied about his reasons for purchasing the diamond bracelet. In my opinion, however, the evidence in this case precludes my concurrence in the majority’s holding with respect to this issue.
As the Tenth Circuit stated in Garciar-Emanuel: “If we had sat on the jury, we might not have convicted [the defendant] for money laundering. But in reviewing [his] conviction on appeal, we are unable to hold that the jury’s conclusion was unreasonable.” 14 F.3d at 1478 (internal quotation marks omitted). After carefully reviewing the record developed at trial, I believe the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, would allow a rational jury to conclude Marshall’s purchases of the Rolex, the diamond bracelet, and the collectible wines were motivated, at least in part, by a design or intent to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control of the bank larceny proceeds. Furthermore, for the reasons stated, I believe the cases cited by the majority in support of its conclusion are factually distinct from the case at hand, and do not mandate vacatur of Marshall’s money laundering convictions. Consequently, I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion vacating Marshall’s convictions on Counts 3-5.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in part I, above, and for the reasons put forth in the majority’s opinion, I concur in the decision to REVERSE Marshall’s conviction for possessing or concealing stolen bank property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(c). I also concur generally with parts II.A, II.B, II.C, and II.D.2 of the majority’s opinion. I must respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s holding with respect to Marshall’s money laundering convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)®, as I would AFFIRM those convictions for the reasons stated in part II, above.

. Although the majority characterizes Marshall’s purchase of the wines, a Rolex and a diamond tennis bracelet as a "few isolated purchases of wearable or consumable items," I think the evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude Marshall made each purchase as an investment, a fact which supports the conclusion Marshall’s inLent was to convert the "dirty” bank larceny proceeds into "clean” assets that could not be traced directly to his crime. Marshall himself admitted as much during his testimony at trial:
Q. Just the wine you purchased, you said you still have it?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you purchase that wine as an investment?
A. I purchased it and the watches as an investment. That’s correct.
This testimony constitutes direct evidence Marshall saw the wine and the Rolex as investments. Since the only other purchase at issue involved the diamond tennis bracelet, one could logically presume the plural "watches” includes the bracelet.

. Although Marshall admitted the wine was purchased as an investment, see supra note 1, *548it is clear from Marshall's testimony and the testimony of Ron Koly, the wine merchant, that these wines may fairly be characterized as "collectible.”