Summaries of Selected Opinions
| Jurisdiction | United States,Federal |
| Citation | Vol. 40 No. 7 Pg. 165 |
| Pages | 165 |
| Publication year | 2011 |
2011, July, Pg. 165. Summaries of Selected Opinions
July 2011
Vol. 40, No. 7 [Page 165]
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Summaries of selected Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions appear on a space-available basis. The summaries are prepared for the Colorado Bar Association (CBA)by Katherine Campbell and Frank Gibbard, licensed Colorado attorneys. They are provided as a serviceby the CBA and are not the official language of this Court. The CBA cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries. Full copies of the Tenth Circuit decisions are accessible from the CBA website: www.cobar.org (click on "Opinions/Rules/Statutes").
No. 10-4079. United States v. Huff. 04/19/2011. D.Utah. Judge Tymkovich. Monetary Transactions in Criminally Derived Property-Depositing Checks Constituted Money Laundering.
A jury convicted defendant of one count of wire fraud and two counts of money laundering. In connection with his construction of a new home, he submitted a loan application containing false statements and supportedby false and fraudulent documentation. The mortgage company to whom he applied then made a wire transfer to a title company, which issued two checks to defendant. Defendant then deposited the checks into his business bank account.
On appeal, defendant challenged his money laundering convictions, arguing the government did not prove he possessed the wire fraud proceeds before he allegedly engaged in money laundering. The issue under the money laundering statute was whether he "engaged in monetary transactions in criminally derived property" when he deposited the checks into his bank account. Defendant argued that he did not obtain the proceeds of the wire fraud until after he deposited the checks into his account, and that he could not launder proceeds he did not yet possess.
The Tenth Circuit disagreed. It concluded that defendant obtained the criminally derived proceeds when he received the checks. When he deposited them, he committed money laundering. The wire transfer that supported the wire fraud conviction (defendant's fax of the loan application to the mortgage company) was separate from the monetary transactions supporting the money laundering charge (his deposit of the two checks). The money laundering charges therefore stemmed from later conduct, after the wire fraud was complete. Moreover, the checks constituted proceeds of criminal activity receivedby defendant, even before he deposited them into his account. The Circuit therefore affirmed his conviction.
No. 10-2226. United States v. Maestas. 04/25/2011. D.N.M. Judge Holmes. Fourth Amendment-No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Common-Enclosed Garbage Storage Area.
Defendant pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. While under police surveillance in connection with a controlled purchase of methamphetamine, defendant was observed entering a triplex residential unit where he had spent a considerable amount of time during the preceding three months. He entered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial