Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-6969
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(2:12-cv-01890-MGL)
Argued:
Decided:
the
ARGUED: Joel
Morris
Bondurant,
Jr.,
BONDURANT
LAW
FIRM,
Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. Anthony Joseph Enright, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United
States
Attorney,
OFFICE
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
from
appeal,
Hines
an
extensive
argues
that
mortgage
his
money
fraud
conspiracy.
laundering
On
conspiracy
We disagree.
I.
A.
A
grand
jury
in
the
Western
District
of
North
Carolina
counts
related
to
his
investment
scheme.
Count
one
eleven
charged
Hines
with
conspiracy
to
commit
money
of
18
U.S.C.
371
(Count
One)
and
one
count
of
The
his
plea
agreement,
Hines
admitted
that
he
and
his
Through those
purchased.
To
lull
the
buyers,
Hines
offered
to
make
his
coconspirators
arranged
for
the
buyers
to
Hines
purchase
After a
become
delinquent.
Ultimately,
many
of
the
investment
perpetrate
the
scheme,
Hines
falsified
the
loan
applications.
to
Group
the
Mega
entities,
Hines
and
his
coconspirators
The mortgage
Stipulation
to
Factual
Basis
states,
With
respect
to
financial
institutions.
J.A.
84.
The
stipulation
[that]
at
least
portion
of
the
proceeds
from
loans
Id.
promote
During
the
the
plea
conspiracy
colloquy,
charged
the
in
Count
magistrate
One.
judge
J.A.
94.
specifically
asked Hines, [I]s this a true statement and do you affirm this
statement
at
this
time?
Id.
Hines
stated,
Yes.
Id.
with respect to Count One, Hines and his coconspirators used the
Mega
Group
entities
to
purchase
real
estate
between
the
J.A. 92.
purchase
and
and
inflate
its
the
sale
price
as
governments
Hines,
[D]o
factual
you
proffer,
understand
the
both
J.A. 70.
magistrate
what
judge
said
After
asked
and
[the
district
court
Id.
sentenced
to
Id.
term
of
and
that
his
money
laundering
conspiracy
conviction
unlawful
activity.
Hines
claimed
that
the
transactions
transactions
furtherance
merger
of
listed
the
problem.
in
the
mortgage
The
indictment
fraud
district
as
conspiracy,
court
found
overt
acts
leading
that
to
Santos,
in
a
as
inapplicable
offenses.
because
it
did
not
apply
to
conspiracy
II.
We review de novo a district courts grant or denial of a
writ of habeas corpus on questions of law.
Brown, 155 F.3d 431, 434 (4th Cir. 1998).
over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291.
United States v.
We have jurisdiction
Id. at 433.
III.
Applying Santos, Hines contends that the money laundering
conspiracy merges into the mortgage fraud conspiracy, as the
same transactions support convictions for both crimes.
He thus
[Eleven]
of
the
indictment
simply
cannot
stand.
The
of
the
dismissed
charges,
see
Bousley
v.
United
decision
and
our
application
of
that
case
in
conspiracy,
the
government
was
required
to
show
(1)
the
or
more
of
the
substantive
money
laundering
offenses
knew
that
the
money
laundering
proceeds
had
been
v.
Singh,
518
F.3d
236,
248
(4th
Cir.
2008)
United
(citing
United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005)).
At
Court
(plurality
adopted
opinion).
profits
The
definition.
plurality
further
Id.
noted
at
514
that
the
bettor
is
transaction
involving
receipts
that
the
Stevens
that
[t]he
revenue
generated
by
money
laundering
statute,
because
[a]llowing
the
illegal
gambling
business
as
separate
offense
is
in
Id. at 527-28
concurring).
In United States v. Halstead, we considered the reach of
Santos in the context of a defendant convicted of healthcare
10
Halsteads fraud
Id. at
from his transfer of the illicit gains into his personal bank
account.
Id. at 280-81.
into
his
own
bank
accounts
constituted
resolve
Halsteads
argument
we
an
essential
Id.
first
examined
what,
only
predicate
in
for
cases
the
where
illegal
defendants
gambling
money
constituted
laundering
the
conviction.
to
construe
the
money
laundering
statute
so
as
that
merely
defendant
for
cannot
paying
U.S.
at
528
(Stevens,
J.,
the
be
convicted
essential
to
avoid
Id.
of
We
money
expenses
of
But
if
the
Id. at 27980.
this
rule
to
Halstead,
we
held
that
was
complete
healthcare
as
soon
reimbursements.
as
Id.
he
at
merger
His healthcare
received
280.
no
the
ill-gotten
Transferring
these
separate
offense
that
the
government
properly
Id.
680
applications
and
kickbacks
buyers,
to
the
payment
at
of
least
thousands
one
mortgage
of
dollars
broker,
and
in
the
Id. at 400.
of
mortgage
laundering.
fraud
Id. at 399.
conspiracy,
and
six
counts
of
money
fraud
scheme.
Id.
at
406.
On
appeal,
we
reversed
those
Id. at 408.
Id. at 408.
In
Id. at 409.
for
conspiracy
Clouds
to
substantive
commit
money
money
laundering
laundering
because
charges,
the
used
the
profits
from
his
previous
Id. at 408.
[illegal
deals]
to
Thus, we affirmed
Id.
B.
(noting
that
addressing
Justice
that
Stevenss
situation
on
opinion
a
. . .
case-by-case
would
require
approach
and
have
repeatedly
held
that
if
the
financial
Hines stipulated
That stipulation
transactions
admitted,
underlying
his
at
his
money
to
further
or
promote
the
conspiracy
hearing,
laundering
that
conspiracy
the
Further,
transactions
conviction
are
addition,
Hines
agreed
with
the
governments
proffer
admissions,
therefore,
are
fatal
to
his
Santos
money
problem.);
laundering
Halstead,
count]
634
F.3d
does
not
at
279-80
present
(But
merger
when
the
Thus, the
IV.
For
the
reasons
stated,
the
district
courts
denial
of
16