Carlos Rodriguez v. United States, 16-16979

Rodriguez, Terra Telecommunications minority owner and VP, was convicted after a jury trial of FCPA violations, wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)), and substantive concealment money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)).
Evidence showed Terra paid sham companies to reduce Teleco (Haitian government instrumentality) bills; payments were routed to Teleco officials and their associates.
On direct appeal this Court affirmed convictions, finding overwhelming evidence Rodriguez knew the payments were unlawful despite an improper deliberate-ignorance jury instruction. United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912 (11th Cir. 2014).
Rodriguez filed a pro se § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to challenge sufficiency of the evidence on (1) conspiracy to commit money laundering and (2) knowledge that transactions were designed to conceal proceeds.
The magistrate judge’s R&R (adopted by the district court) expressly addressed only the concealment-knowledge sufficiency claim and found no deficiency or prejudice; it did not separately analyze the conspiracy-count sufficiency claim.
This Court granted a COA on whether the district court committed a Clisby error by failing to resolve the conspiracy-sufficiency ineffective-assistance claim and affirmed, holding the court effectively resolved both claims because they rested on the same core knowledge issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court committed Clisby error by not addressing counsel-ineffectiveness claim challenging sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit money laundering	Rodriguez: district court failed to resolve a separate constitutional claim that counsel should have challenged sufficiency of evidence that he knowingly and voluntarily joined a money-laundering conspiracy	Government: magistrate and district court sufficiently addressed the controlling knowledge issue; no Clisby error because claims were effectively adjudicated	Held: No Clisby error — court reasonably treated the knowledge-of-concealment issue as dispositive of both the concealment counts and the conspiracy claim, so denial affirmed

Clisby v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (district courts must resolve all constitutional claims in § 2255 motions)
United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming convictions; evidence showed Rodriguez knew payments were unlawful)
Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for § 2255 denials)
Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2014) (liberal construction of pro se habeas filings)
Rhode v. United States, 583 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2009) (Clisby extended to § 2255 motions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
Miles, 290 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2002) (knowledge element for concealment money laundering)
Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (elements and proof of conspiracy to violate § 1956)
Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 1998) (COA limits appellate review)