United States v. Roger Day, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24590
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Day led a multi-year scheme defrauding the DOD by supplying nonconforming parts; 59% of contracts involved critical application items.
- Co-conspirators formed new companies to evade debarment and continue bidding on contracts.
- Gold was transported from the U.S. to Mexico and Canada to launder proceeds; Day used false identities and multiple routes.
- Day was extradited from Mexico and stood trial in the Eastern District of Virginia; he was convicted on multiple counts.
- The district court sentenced Day to 1,260 months, plus fines, restitution, and forfeiture; challenged on several grounds.
- The court addressed evidentiary rulings and venue, and considered Apprendi/Southern Union effects on fines, restitution, and forfeiture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aiding-and-abetting instruction constructive amendment | Day argues instruction broadened indictment | Day claims added theory via instruction | No constructive amendment; aiding/abetting permitted |
| Specialty rule under extradition treaty | Specialty barred trial on unex extradited theory | No violation; aiding/abetting not separate offense | No specialty violation; trial proper regarding instructed theories |
| Transportation money laundering—design to conceal | Gold transport lacked concealment design | Cuellar controls; evidence insufficient | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported concealment design |
| Gold as funds under § 1956(a)(2) | Gold not funds; ambiguity | Gold is a liquid monetary asset | Gold can constitute funds; sufficiency supported |
| Venue in Eastern District of Virginia | Venue improper | Overt acts insufficient | Venue proper based on emails/phone calls and district acts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashley v. United States, 606 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2010) (aiding and abetting liability need not be charged in indictment)
- Rauscher, (1886) (—) (specialty treaty rule focuses on extradited offense)
- Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (S. Ct. 2008) (design to conceal element in money laundering viewed via circumstantial evidence)
- Saccoccia v. United States, 58 F.3d 754 (1st Cir. 1995) (forfeiture may proceed without Apprendi max constraints)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012) (Apprendi applies to fines; restitution/forfeiture separate)
- Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) (undefined terms interpreted by ordinary meaning)