United States v. Blair
661 F.3d 755
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Blair, a Maryland attorney, laundered drug proceeds for Rankine’s drug organization through Nicely, coordinating a “partner money” scheme and real estate investments as cover.
- Nicely and Henry delivered drug money to Blair; Blair devised a corporate façade (Jay Paul Property Management) and used Blair & Associates to channel funds.
- Blair advised taking steps to conceal the proceeds, including a cover story and real estate investments, and crafted a written “opinion letter” to normalize the transaction.
- Blair funded associates’ defense attorneys with tainted proceeds and secured pro hac vice admission while concealing his own disciplinary history.
- Blair was convicted on multiple counts of money laundering (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957), obstruction of justice (Count 11), and tax-filing failures, with the district court denying severance for the tax counts.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed most money-laundering convictions, reversed Count 11 (obstruction) for insufficient evidence, and remanded for resentencing; it affirmed severance ruling as to the tax counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of money-laundering evidence | Blair argues Counts 1, 5, 6, 8 lack substantial evidence | Blair contends evidence fails to show concealment intent for laundering | Sufficient evidence supports Counts 1, 5, 6, 8 |
| Obstruction of justice sufficiency | Government argues Blair’s false statements impeded justice | Blair contends no nexus to obstruction from misrepresentations | Count 11 insufficient; reverse obstruction conviction |
| Joinder/severance of tax counts | Joinder proper under Rule 8(a); severance under Rule 14 not warranted | Misjoinder could prejudice; severance advisable | Joinder proper; any misjoinder harmless; severance denied |
| § 1957 safe harbor applicability to Count 9 | Safe harbor applies to transactions necessary to preserve Sixth Amendment rights | Safe harbor does not protect using others’ tainted proceeds for counsel for third parties | Safe harbor does apply; Blair’s use falls within § 1957(f)(1) exemption; majority sustains Count 9 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilkinson, 137 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 1998) (elements of § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) sufficiency)
- United States v. Gotti, 459 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2006) (transactions qualify as financial transactions under § 1956)
- United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 1993) (necessity of nexus for obstruction § 1503)
- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (U.S. 1989) ( Sixth Amendment right to counsel; forfeiture context; limits on § 1957(f)(1) scope)
- United States v. Mackins, 315 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2003) (curative jury instructions mitigate prejudice from joinder)
- United States v. LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815 (4th Cir. 1990) (joinder spillover effects; jury instructions mitigate)
- Hawkins v. United States, 589 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2009) (harmlessness standard for misjoinder)
- United States v. Hoogenboom, 209 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2000) (§ 1957(f)(1) safe harbor analysis; necessity)
- United States v. Velez, 586 F.3d 875 (11th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of § 1957(f)(1) safe harbor; limits; cross-context comparison)