United States v. Taylor, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3837

Dewey Taylor, an Afro Dogs MC chapter leader, was indicted with co-defendants for a conspiracy to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and was separately charged with thirteen structuring counts (later reduced to seven counts directed only at Taylor).
Government evidence (wiretaps, cooperating witness Allen, and testimony) showed Taylor delivered a kilogram of cocaine, stored drugs and assisted in counting drug proceeds; Taylor was tried and called no witnesses.
Banking records from Erie Metro Federal Credit Union showed numerous cash deposits into Taylor’s business (D.T. Liquor) and personal accounts between 2008–2009, including seven occasions where paired deposits on the same day/branch together exceeded $10,000 (the charged ‘‘split’’ deposits).
The jury convicted Taylor of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine (a lesser quantity than the indicted 5 kg) and of seven transaction-structuring counts; Taylor was sentenced to concurrent terms.
On appeal, Taylor argued (1) the drug-quantity verdict amounted to a constructive amendment of the indictment and (2) the structuring convictions rested on insufficient evidence of intent to evade Currency Transaction Report (CTR) rules. The Second Circuit affirmed the conspiracy conviction, vacated the structuring convictions, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Taylor)	Held
Whether convicting Taylor of conspiracy involving 500+ grams (when indictment charged 5+ kg) was a constructive amendment	The jury was properly instructed on conspiracy elements and drug-quantity options; conviction for lesser-included quantity is permitted under Rule 31(c)	The verdict on a lower quantity enlarged the bases for conviction beyond the indictment (constructive amendment)	Affirmed: conviction upheld as a lesser-included offense; jury was properly charged and had notice of the core criminality
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove intent to evade CTR reporting for the seven charged split deposits	The pattern of split deposits over 20 months supports an inference of intent to evade reporting requirements	Transactions are consistent with ordinary cash-business practice; many single deposits exceeded $10,000; no evidence tellers failed to follow policy or that CTRs were not filed	Reversed: evidence insufficient to infer intent to evade; no ‘‘pattern’’ comparable to cases upholding structuring convictions
Whether remand is required after vacating structuring counts	— (implicit)	Sentence may have been influenced by the vacated counts	Remanded for resentencing because the district court considered the currency at issue in imposing the conspiracy sentence

United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208 (2d Cir.) (constructive amendment principle)
United States v. D’Amelio, 683 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2012) (notice of core criminality and flexibility in proof)
United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) (lesser-included/offense-charge requirement context)
United States v. MacPherson, 424 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2005) (pattern of structured transactions can prove intent)
United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1987) (evidence supporting structuring intent via numerous transactions)
United States v. Milstein, 401 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.) (constructive amendment discussion)
United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723 (2d Cir.) (standards for constructive amendment)
United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317 (6th Cir.) (lesser-included conviction permissible)
United States v. Van Allen, 524 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2008) (volume/effort of transactions informs intent inference)
United States v. Gibbons, 968 F.2d 639 (8th Cir. 1992) (changes to make multiple transactions less efficient supports inference of intent)
Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (knowledge/willfulness requirement in structuring context)
United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) (assessing evidence in totality for sufficiency review)