James Thornberg v. Jack Fox
692 F. App'x 341
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- James Thornberg pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering (count 14) tied to a payment to Mail Stop Extra and other charges; he later filed a § 2241 habeas petition claiming actual innocence under intervening law.
- Thornberg relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Santos and the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation in United States v. Van Alstyne to argue the money laundering statute should be read more narrowly.
- The payment to Mail Stop Extra provided a mailing address and received payments from victims; the court found those mail services were a central component of Thornberg’s scheme to defraud.
- The government, as part of Thornberg’s plea agreement, forewent prosecuting additional money laundering counts (counts 15–22) tied to payments to GTE for telephone service.
- The record is silent on whether the GTE phone number was used to communicate with victims or was otherwise central to the fraud; therefore the court could not find the same “merger problem” for the GTE-related counts.
- The district court assumed Thornberg lacked an earlier unobstructed procedural opportunity to raise the claim and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the § 2241 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thornberg can use § 2241 to attack his money laundering conviction based on Santos/Van Alstyne | Thornberg: Santos/Van Alstyne create a "merger problem" making the conduct noncriminal under § 1956, so he is actually innocent | Government: Plea and facts show payments supported laundering; no entitlement to § 2241 relief | Court: Assumed procedural access was blocked and found actual innocence for the Mail Stop Extra-based count but not for GTE-based counts |
| Whether the Mail Stop Extra payment was a "central component" of the scheme to defraud under Van Alstyne | Thornberg: Mail Stop Extra provided headquarters and received victim payments, so it was central | Government: Payment was for mail services distinct from wire/fraud elements | Court: Payment was central to the scheme (affects the § 1956 analysis) |
| Whether Thornberg must show innocence of charges the government forgone in plea bargaining (counts 15–22) | Thornberg: Focused on individual count (14) but argued related services were part of scheme | Government: Plea agreement bars relief unless Thornberg shows those forgone charges also invalid | Court: Under Bousley, Thornberg must show those charges also suffer the merger problem; record fails to show that for GTE |
| Whether payments to GTE created a Van Alstyne merger problem | Thornberg: Payments to GTE were for phone service used in the fraud | Government: Record does not show phone was central or used in wire fraud | Court: Record silent—cannot conclude GTE service was central; no overall actual innocence established |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2006) (§ 2241 actual innocence and unobstructed procedural opportunity framework)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (statutory interpretation of money laundering language)
- United States v. Van Alstyne, 584 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2009) (applies Santos to identify "merger problem" where underlying scheme makes laundering element duplicative)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence must extend to charges the government forgone in plea bargaining)
- United States v. Manzer, 69 F.3d 222 (8th Cir. 1995) (wire fraud requires a scheme to defraud and use of wires)