United States v. Jerry Dwayne Lang, 732 F.3d 1246

Jerry Lang was indicted on 85 counts for violating 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) (structuring) and convicted on 70 counts; he appealed claiming the indictment was insufficient.
Section 5324(a)(3) criminalizes structuring transactions to evade the § 5313(a) reporting requirement (transactions over $10,000 must be reported); regulations define "structuring" as conducting transactions to evade reporting.
The indictment charged each count as a separate structuring offense based on a single check amount under $10,000; no count alleged a single underlying payment exceeding $10,000 that was broken into sub-threshold transactions.
The government argued Lang received payments exceeding $10,000 from one source that were broken into checks under $10,000 and cashed to evade reporting, but the indictment did not plead that grouped transaction in any count.
Eleventh Circuit agrees with Seventh and Tenth Circuits that the unit of prosecution is the larger amount that is broken into smaller transactions (the structured amount), not each resulting sub-threshold deposit or check.
Because every count alleged only a single sub-threshold check as the offense, the court found the indictment failed to allege an essential element (a structured amount exceeding the reporting threshold) and thus was so defective it did not charge the offense; the conviction was vacated and the indictment dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Lang)	Held
Proper unit of prosecution for structuring	Each cash/check transaction charged may be a separate structuring offense	Unit is the larger amount broken into smaller transactions; single sub-threshold check cannot constitute structuring	Unit is the pre-divided amount exceeding the reporting threshold; not each sub-threshold transaction
Sufficiency of the indictment	Counts alleging individual checks suffice when viewed with paragraph 1 (pattern allegation)	Each count must allege facts establishing a structured amount > $10,000; single checks < $10,000 cannot plead structuring	Indictment insufficient: each count failed to allege the required structured amount or intent to evade reporting
Use of aggregated allegations across counts	Government relied on paragraph incorporated in counts to show larger pattern and predicate for enhanced penalty	Cannot combine independent counts to supply missing elements; each count must stand alone unless expressly incorporated	Court will not combine counts to cure a systemic pleading defect; aggregation cannot save deficient counts
Remedy for defective indictment raised on appeal	(Implicit) convictions should stand absent prejudice	When indictment is so defective it does not charge the offense, conviction must be vacated	Judgment vacated and case remanded with directions to dismiss indictment

Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (defines structuring as breaking up a single transaction above the reporting threshold to evade reporting)
United States v. Davenport, 929 F.2d 1169 (7th Cir. 1991) (unit of crime is the structuring of the larger amount, not each resulting deposit)
United States v. Nall, 949 F.2d 301 (10th Cir. 1991) (same conclusion: the structured sum is the unit of prosecution)
United States v. Pena, 684 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing indictment sufficiency raised first on appeal)