United States v. Souza
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7358
1st Cir.2014Background
- Souza befriended elderly Burtchaell, who exhibited signs of diminished mental capacity, then induced him into a Maine real-estate transaction that produced loan proceeds later wired to Souza.
- Burtchaell took an $89,000 loan and wired almost all proceeds into Souza’s Sovereign Bank account; Souza subsequently made multiple cash withdrawals, many under $10,000, including six $9,000 withdrawals on June 15 totaling $54,000.
- Banks aggregate same-day transactions across branches for CTR reporting; Sovereign filed a report for the $54,000 June 15 activity. Souza was charged under 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) for structuring transactions to evade reporting.
- At trial the government introduced evidence of the Maine transaction (alleged fraud against Burtchaell) to rebut Souza’s claim that he was forced to make multiple withdrawals because branches lacked cash and to show intent to evade reporting.
- Souza was convicted; he appealed raising speedy-trial (STA and Sixth Amendment), ineffective assistance, due-process vagueness, evidentiary, and sentencing- guideline challenges. The First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Souza) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| STA delay (arrest→indictment) | Joint motion to enlarge time didn’t validly toll STA; exclusion improper | Joint motion tolled clock while under advisement; exclusion allowed under STA §§3161(h)(1)(D),(H) | Court held joint motion tolled Aug 20–Sep 19; STA compliance satisfied |
| STA/Sixth Amendment delay (indictment→trial) | Much pretrial time was non-excludable; violation of speedy-trial rights | Many delays attributable to Souza/counsel; government delays were valid (replacement counsel, agent leave) | Souza waived specific STA challenges; Sixth Amendment balance favors government — no violation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel agreed to joint motion without consulting Souza; prejudiced his STA rights | Claim not appropriate on direct appeal; requires district-court factfinding | Court declined to adjudicate on direct appeal; directed collateral review under Strickland framework |
| Due process/vagueness of §5324(a)(3) | Statute punishes evasion only if reporting triggered; here reporting occurred, so statute is vague as applied | §5324 targets intent to evade, not success; conviction valid even if reporting occurred | Held that statute gives fair notice; intent to evade is punishable irrespective of success |
| Admission of Maine-transaction evidence | Evidence of alleged fraud was improper extrinsic evidence/unduly prejudicial under Rules 404(b)/403 | Evidence was intrinsic to the charged conduct and probative of intent to conceal ill-gotten gains | Evidence was intrinsic and admissible; Rule 403 balancing did not show abuse of discretion |
| Sentencing: amount structured, proceeds source, vulnerable victim | Challenges to amount counted, whether funds were unlawful proceeds, and applicability of vulnerable-victim enhancement | Court found multiple withdrawals (June 8–15) formed common scheme; funds derived from fraud and victim was vulnerable due to age/mental decline | Court’s guideline factfindings upheld (no clear error): $73,176 structured, proceeds from unlawful activity, vulnerable-victim enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valdivia, 680 F.3d 33 (1st Cir.) (standards for STA review)
- United States v. Gates, 709 F.3d 58 (1st Cir.) (STA exclusions; reasonable vacation & continuances)
- United States v. Richardson, 421 F.3d 17 (1st Cir.) (motions to continue can toll STA)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial balancing factors)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptively prejudicial delay threshold)
- Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (2009) (delays caused by defense counsel attributed to defendant)
- United States v. Sweeney, 611 F.3d 459 (8th Cir.) (§5324 targets intent, success irrelevant)
- United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal, 355 F.3d 40 (1st Cir.) (intrinsic vs. 404(b) evidence)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (prosecution may present narrative evidence to jurors)
- United States v. Johnson, 297 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.) (fraud generating illicit funds can be relevant conduct to other offenses)