United States v. Selene Suarez, 966 F.3d 376

Suarez was an office manager who handled cash deposits to purchase cashier’s checks for her employer; she sometimes split deposits into amounts under $10,000 that together exceeded $10,000.
She was indicted on six counts of structuring under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3); Count 4 charged two $5,000 deposits on April 22, 2015 (totaling $10,000).
At trial the government produced evidence that Suarez directed a colleague (Erica Guerra) to purchase a $1,100 cashier’s check the same day; the jury convicted Suarez on Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 and acquitted Count 2; the district court granted JMOL as to Count 6.
The district court denied pretrial and post-trial dismissal of Count 4, sentenced Suarez to 13 months, and entered a $52,042 forfeiture judgment representing funds involved in the convictions.
On appeal Suarez argued (1) Count 4 failed to state an offense because the charged transactions did not exceed $10,000 and (2) the $52,042 forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count 4 sufficiently alleged a structuring offense	Count 4 alleges only two $5,000 deposits (total $10,000), so it fails to allege transactions > $10,000 and therefore fails to state an offense	Indictment listed elements and gave notice; trial evidence would and did establish amounts exceeding $10,000	Indictment was legally deficient but error was harmless because trial evidence (the additional $1,100 transaction plus other proof) supported a >$10,000 structuring offense; denial of motion to dismiss affirmed
Whether $52,042 forfeiture is an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment	Forfeiture is excessive because the money did not belong to Suarez and the offense caused no monetary loss; she also asserts inability to pay	Forfeiture is tied to amounts involved in convicted offenses, is below statutory maximum, and fits the factors used in Bajakajian proportionality analysis	Forfeiture not grossly disproportional: offenses were repeated and related to other criminal activity, the forfeiture is well under the statutory maximum and less than double the Guidelines maximum; Eighth Amendment challenge denied

United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) (establishes Eighth Amendment proportionality framework for forfeiture/excessive fines)
United States v. Lang, 732 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2013) (structuring requires the structured transactions to involve more than $10,000)
United States v. Oreira, 29 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 1994) (reporting requirement applies to transactions over $10,000)
United States v. Robinson, 367 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2004) (harmless-error analysis for indictment defects and whether substantial rights were affected)
United States v. Dentler, 492 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2007) (indictment sufficiency and harmless-error review)
United States v. Sperrazza, 804 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2015) (purpose of CTRs in detecting criminal activity)
United States v. Wallace, 389 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2004) (ongoing/repeated conduct increases gravity in proportionality inquiry)