Roberts v. LeJune

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s section 2241 petition seeking to set aside his money laundering conviction on ground that both his indictment and jury instructions in his 2000 trial allowed jury to convict him based on definition of “proceeds” that included gross proceeds on unlawful activity, as opposed to net profits of said activity. Instant petition was filed eight years after Supreme Court plurality decision in Santos, 553 U.S. 507, which held that definition of “proceeds” in money laundering statute pertained only to net profits of unlawful activity. Defendant, though, was unable to show that fundamental miscarriage of justice had occurred, where: (1) it was unclear whether wire transfer at issue in his conviction exclusively drew on gross profits to pay for business expense or if it represented net profits that defendant was using for concealment purposes; and (2) case law is unclear in post-Santos cases as to how gross proceeds/net profit distinction applied in concealment cases. As such, defendant could not show that any error seriously affected fairness or integrity of his money laundering conviction.