United States v. Jed Lineberry
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25080
5th Cir.2012Background
- Lineberry appeals a district court dismissal of his §2255 challenge to money-laundering convictions and a false-declaration sentence.
- Santos defined proceeds as profits, not receipts, for the money-laundering statute at issue.
- Garland interpreted Santos for §2241 savings-clause collateral attacks and discussed a two-part Stevens concurrence.
- Lineberry argued the proceeds here were gross receipts and that there was a merger problem with the underlying prostitution activity.
- The district court and court apply a Stevens-concurrence framework to assess whether a merger problem exists and whether proceeds are gross receipts generally.
- The court ultimately holds no merger problem exists here and that proceeds are presumptively gross receipts absent contrary legislative history, so Lineberry’s §2255 motion is denied and convictions stand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a merger problem exists when defendant isn’t charged with the underlying activity | Lineberry argues Santos would merge the offenses | Government contends no merger problem since underlying activity not charged | No merger problem under these facts |
| Whether proceeds should be defined as gross receipts or profits in Lineberry’s case | Proceedes should be profits under Santos | Presumptively gross receipts absent specific history | Proceeds presumptively gross receipts; no vacatur of convictions |
| Whether vacating money-laundering convictions requires vacating the false-declaration conviction | If money-laundering vacated, false-declaration must be vacated | False declaration remains valid | False declaration upheld; not vacated by vacating money-laundering convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Santos v. United States, 553 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2008) (defined proceeds as profits and discussed merger concerns)
- Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2010) (interpreted Santos for retroactivity and merger framework)
- Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2011) (applied Stevens concurrence; distinguished cases with no merger problem)
- United States v. Fernandez, 559 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009) (definition of proceeds in jury instructions; profits vs receipts)
- Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001) (savings-clause framework for retroactive claims)