United States v. Norberto Alaniz
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15390
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendants-Appellants Salas-Galaviz, Alaniz, Lopez, Galaviz, and Magana were convicted of drug trafficking, money laundering, and conspiracy; Alaniz’s conviction and sentence were fully affirmed, while Salas and the ML Appellants’ Count 10 sentences were vacated for re-sentencing.
- Salas, an illegal immigrant from Mexico with an alias Daniel Obregon, ran a large cocaine/marijuana trafficking operation from Laredo acting ostensibly as a car salesman; Salas’s wealth spike and cross-border transfers indicated illicit proceeds.
- Alaniz transported drugs for Salas and had prior drug-trafficking convictions; Lopez (Salas’s wife), Galaviz (Salas’s mother), and Magana (Salas’s sister) laundered drug proceeds through a sham business network (LC Contractors, Via Italia Devine) and real estate/vehicle transactions.
- The government relied on confidential informants CS1 and CS2; Salas and ML Appellants were convicted on conspiracy to launder (Count 10) and substantive money laundering counts (Counts 11–15).
- The district court imposed substantial prison terms, fines, and forfeitures; the government conceded a sentencing error related to Count 10, resulting in vacatur and remand for re-sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and laundering | Salas and ML Appellants had ample evidence of wealth, knowledge of drug origin, and implied laundering. | Gaps in tying funds to illicit activity and lack of explicit conspiracy proof undermine convictions. | Evidence was plentiful to support conspiracy and laundering convictions. |
| Admissibility of alias informants and Crawford concerns | CS1 and CS2 testified under aliases with disclosed true names; their testimony admissible under informant framework. | Confrontation Clause and Crawford require disclosure or warnings when informants testify under aliases. | Limited use of aliases did not violate the Confrontation Clause; circumstantial disclosure and context supported admissibility. |
| Deliberate ignorance instruction | Lopez and Galaviz showed intentional avoidance of knowledge; instruction proper. | Deliberate ignorance instruction may be improper for multiple defendants; risk of prejudice. | Deliberate ignorance instruction proper and, even if error, harmless given substantial evidence of knowledge. |
| Pinkerton liability instruction | Pattern instruction properly linked conspiracies and co-conspirators’ acts. | Courts must distinguish between drug trafficking conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy. | District court did not err; charge distinguished between substantive conspiracies in context. |
| Count 10 sentencing maximum (24 U.S.C. 1956(h) vs 1957) | Count 10 liability fell under 1956(h) and 1957; sentencing should reflect highest applicable maximum. | Ambiguity requires applying the lowest maximum; vacate and remand Count 10 sentences. | Count 10 sentences vacated and remanded for re-sentencing; Conley controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fuchs, 467 F.3d 889 (5th Cir. 2006) (elements of money laundering; knowledge that property derived from unlawful activity)
- Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court 2005) (no overt act required for conspiracy; general conspiracy law)
- United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 1999) (conspiracy separate from substantive offense)
- United States v. Fernandez, 559 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence and conspiracy)
- United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176 (5th Cir. 1997) (evidence of illicit activity and transactions)
- United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. 1993) (identity may be established by inference and circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2010) (informant testimony under aliases; Confrontation Clause considerations)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements)
- United States v. King, 541 F.3d 1143 (5th Cir. 2008) (co-conspirator statements; non-testimonial)
- Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 1968) (cross-examination; identity of informants; not always disclosure)
- Celis, 608 F.3d 818 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (pseudonymous informant testimony; fear of reprisal; Confrontation Clause)
- Maso, 2007 WL 3121986 (11th Cir. 2007) (pseudonymous informants admissible under balancing framework)
- United States v. Armstrong, 619 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2010) (Pinkerton liability; leadership vs. participation)
- Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2000) (definition of leader/organizer; 3B1.1 factors)
- Hammond, 201 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1999) (relevant conduct; loss amount considerations)
- Ollison, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 2009) (reliability of PSR; sentencing reliance)
- Landerman, 167 F.3d 895 (5th Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction to review departure decisions)