United States v. Thorn
659 F.3d 227
2d Cir.2011Background
- Thorn was convicted of money laundering conspiracy and nine Clean Air Act violations after a 2000 trial.
- The district court later vacated the money laundering conviction under Santos and resentenced Thorn on the remaining counts.
- Thorn filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the proof of proceeds under Santos.
- The district court granted relief, vacating the money laundering conviction and imposing a 132-month total sentence.
- The government cross-appealed; Thorn argued the Santos challenge was procedurally barred but also asserted Double Jeopardy and due process concerns.
- This Court holds Thorn’s Santos challenge was procedurally barred and reinstates the prior judgment and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Santos-based proceeds challenge is procedurally barred | Thorn: preserved or excused; collateral review allowed | United States: default bars collateral review | Procedurally barred; cannot collaterally attack on this ground |
| Whether Thorn preserved the proceeds challenge on direct appeal | Thorn challenged proceeds on appeal | Challenge concerned promotion, not proceeds definition | No direct appeal preservation of Santos-based proceeds issue |
| Whether Thorn can show cause and prejudice to excuse default | Cause due to novelty of claim; futility under Smith v. Murray | Claim was available; not excused by novelty | Cannot show cause |
| Whether Thorn can show actual innocence to excuse default | Actual innocence; Santos retroactivity could negate conviction | Evidence shows proceeds supported conviction even under Santos | Actual innocence not shown |
| Remedy for cross-appeals; whether amended judgment should be reinstated | Vacatur appropriate due to Santos | Remand for further proceedings; Santos controls outcome | Amended judgment vacated; reinstated prior judgment and sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (definition of proceeds for money laundering)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence exception to procedural default)
- Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (procedural default rule for § 2255; exceptions for cause and innocence)
- Zhang v. United States, 506 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2007) (procedural default and collateral review principles)
- United States v. Scialabba, 282 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2002) (definition of proceeds context; novelty considerations for cause)