745 F.3d 1135
11th Cir.2014Background
- DEA investigated Mexican drug trafficking organization distributing coke/heroin in Atlanta and smuggling cash to Mexico; eleven charged in 2010 with conspiracy, drug, and money laundering offenses; Salgado convicted on three counts at trial; PSR used §2S1.1 for base offense level via money laundering despite underlying drug conspiracy; Application Note 2(C) directs adjustments to be based on money laundering offense; district court denied Salgado’s money laundering adjustments while applying other adjustments; this appeal challenges misapplication and the court vacates/remands for new calculation.
- Salgado’s charges included conspiracy to distribute drugs, conspiracy to launder money, and possession with intent to distribute heroin; evidence showed involvement in brokered heroin deal and arranging mechanism to transport money; jury found Salgado guilty on all counts; PSR grouped offenses under §3D1.2(c) and used §2S1.1 to determine base offense level; Salgado objected to drug quantity and to role/money-laundering adjustments.
- District court sustained drug-quantity objection but not role adjustments; court treated Salgado’s role in money laundering as not warranting separate adjustments; the court’s final guideline range was 188-235 months; Salgado requested downward variance based on minor role in conspiracies and codefendants’ sentences; Salgado was sentenced at bottom of range.
- Application Note 2(C) of §2S1.1 provides that Chapter Three adjustments for money laundering must be based on the money-laundering offense, not underlying drug conspiracy; district court’s calculation violated this when it considered underlying conspiracy for a role enhancement; court should remand to recalculate offense levels under §3D1.3(a) using §2S1.1(a)(1) as the basis; decision affirms conviction but vacates sentence for remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Application Note 2(C) governs adjustments in money-laundering sentencing | Salgado: conduct in money laundering controls adjustments | Government: underlying drug conduct may inform counts but adjustments must follow Note 2(C) | Remand for re-calculation under Note 2(C) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rushton, 738 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2013) (grouping and offense-level calculations for related counts emphasized under §3D1.3(a))
- United States v. Anderson, 526 F.3d 319 (6th Cir. 2008) (Note 2(C) bars drug-conspiracy-based adjustments for money-laundering calculations)
- United States v. Keck, 643 F.3d 789 (10th Cir. 2011) (Note 2(C) governs adjustments in money-laundering cases, not drug-offense guidelines)
- United States v. Byors, 586 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2009) (applies Note 2(C) in obstructions/adjustments context for money laundering)
- United States v. Cruzado-Laureano, 440 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2006) (note 2(C) applicable guidance in money-laundering context)
- United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2006) (role/adjustments framework in drug offenses with related charges)