United States v. Johana Leon
841 F.3d 1187
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Johana Leon was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, four counts of money laundering, and three counts under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1) for allegedly attempting to cause a bank not to file currency transaction reports (CTRs); a jury convicted her on the three § 5324(a)(1) counts and acquitted on the others.
- Counts 12–14 alleged multiple cash withdrawals on specific dates where individual withdrawals were under $10,000 but, when aggregated, exceeded $10,000, and the indictment framed the conduct as attempting to avoid CTRs.
- At trial both parties and the court often used the term "structuring"; the government presented testimony applying the Treasury aggregation regulation (31 C.F.R. § 1010.313(b)) to show the daily totals exceeded $10,000.
- Leon did not object to the government’s theory, the evidence presentation, or the jury instructions at trial. On appeal she raised (for the first time) a constructive-amendment theory and an insufficiency-of-the-evidence argument.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed both claims for plain error and affirmed: it held there was no constructive amendment from the government’s use of "structuring" or the court’s modified pattern instruction, and that the evidence (including aggregation analysis and prior teller testimony) was sufficient to support the § 5324(a)(1) convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government’s theory, evidence, and jury instructions constructively amended the indictment by effectively charging § 5324(a)(3) (structuring) instead of § 5324(a)(1) (attempt to cause failure to file CTR) | Leon: Repeated use of the word "structuring" and modified jury instructions shifted the essential elements and allowed conviction of uncharged § 5324(a)(3) offenses | Government: Parties and court used "structuring" as shorthand for arranging sub-$10,000 transactions to avoid CTRs; indictment and instructions tracked § 5324(a)(1)’s elements | No constructive amendment under plain-error review; use of "structuring" did not broaden the charged offense |
| Whether the jury instructions (modified § 5324(a)(3) pattern language) improperly omitted aggregation/financial-institution knowledge elements, producing reversible error | Leon: Instructions failed to reference Treasury aggregation rule and did not require institution knowledge to aggregate, thus permitting conviction without a required element | Government: Instructions tracked § 5324(a)(1)’s language (attempt to cause failure to file) and omission of aggregation as an explicit element is not settled law; omission is not plain error | Not plain error; omission did not amount to constructive amendment and there was no precedent making omission "plain" |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to prove attempt to cause Bank of America not to file CTRs (i.e., that transactions triggered a duty to report via aggregation) | Leon: No evidence that Bank of America’s obligation to file CTRs was triggered on the specified dates; therefore insufficient evidence to support § 5324(a)(1) convictions | Government: Forensic accounting and teller testimony supported aggregation and intent to evade reporting; prior statement to Chase teller that Leon sought to avoid CTRs showed intent and similar behavior | Under plain-error review, evidence was sufficient to support convictions; Leon failed to show plain error |
| Standard of review applicable to Leon’s appellate claims | Leon implicitly urged merits review but forfeited objections at trial | Government: Appeals reviewed for plain error because claims were not raised below | Court: Applied plain-error review and affirmed; Leon failed to satisfy plain-error requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Holt, 777 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review framework for forfeited constructive-amendment claims)
- United States v. Joseph, 709 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review of sufficiency challenges not raised below)
- United States v. Phipps, 81 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 1996) (§ 5324(a)(1) targets attempts to prevent a required CTR from being filed)
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) (constructive amendment doctrine and reversal when indictment elements are broadened)
- United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008) (constructive amendment analysis involving jury instructions)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error review for omitted-element jury-instruction claims)
- United States v. Magluta, 198 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1999) (error is not plain where no controlling precedent resolves the issue)
- United States v. Lang, 732 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2013) (use of “structuring” in § 5324 context)
- United States v. Tobon-Builes, 706 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir. 1983) (pre-codification reference to conduct akin to structuring)
- United States v. Peterson, 607 F.3d 975 (4th Cir. 2010) (distinguishing imperfect and perfect structuring under § 5324)