*1 party’s own cumstances external unconscionable en-
conduct—it would be period par- against
force the limitation Id. injustice
ty gross would result.” explained, previously
at 330. As Minter’s petition timely file his
failure
was not due to a circumstance external to Accordingly,
his own conduct. the district in determining
court abused its discretion equitable was entitled to toll- Minter
ing. petition time-
Because Minter’s
barred, judg- we vacate the district court’s in- entirety
ment in its and remand with petition
structions that Minter’s be dis-
missed as time-barred. AND REMANDED
VACATED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS America,
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Rory BARTLEY, Roy Bailey, a/k/a
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 98-4317. Appeals,
United States Court
Fourth Circuit.
Argued: June
Decided: Oct. *2 money. to launder On conspiracy
count of only his sen- Bartley challenges appeal, court erred tence. Because district offenses, Bartley’s but refusing to Bartley’s managerial in finding did not err conspiracy justified an enhance- role ment, part, part, affirm in reverse in we resentencing. for and vacate and remand I. par-
Edwin Bruce recruited marijuana distribution net- ticipate Charleston, Virginia. West work based Bartley to a number of Bruce introduced buyers, including street dealers. interested marijuana Bartley regularly distributed supply dealers from Bruce’s and these pur- made wire transfers California marijuana on Bruce’s behalf. chase Bartley eventually disaffiliated from marijuana sup- another Bruce and located plier, but he maintained his associations and at with some of Bruce’s street dealers Hamilton, Burgess, ARGUED: Kevin B. marijuana times obtained from Bruce’s Pollard, P.L.L.C., Burgess, Young & Oak Ultimately, Bartley expand- distributors. Hill, Virginia, Appellant. Louise West ed his activities to Par- distribution Crawford, Anna Office of the United kersburg, Virginia, West and directed one Charleston, Virgi- Attorney, West States identify of his street dealers to addresses nia, BRIEF: Rebecca Appellee. ON marijuana there to which could be mailed. Betts, Attorney, A. United John C. street dealers would distribute Bartley’s Parr, Attorney, Assistant United States marijuana pro- wire transfer the Charleston, Appellee. Virginia, West instruction, often to his ceeds on WILKINSON, Judge, Before Chief Bart- Pryce uncle Claudius New York. MOTZ, Judges. MICHAEL and Circuit ley himself would also wire funds from his drug px-oceeds family to various members. part, part,
Affirmed in
reversed
part,
vacated in
and remanded
charged
conspiracy
with
published opinion. Judge DIANA
marijuana,
distifibute
distribution of mari-
majority
wrote the
GRIBBON MOTZ
juana, conspiracy
money,
to launder
opinion,
joined.
Judge
MICHAEL
money laundexing.
After
Judge
Chief
wrote a
WILKINSON
plea negotiations,
pled guilty
he
to the two
dissenting opinion.
conspiracy counts and the district court
calculating
him. In
proceeded to sentence
OPINION
Bartley’s offense level under the Sentenc-
MOTZ,
DIANA
Circuit
GRIBBON
Guidelines,
began
the court
with the
ing
Judge:
assigned
drug distribution
predicated upon
a base offense level of 28
Rory Bartley pled guilty to one count of
marijuana
in the
marijuana
the amount of
involved
conspiracy to distribute
and one
3742(e);
Sentencing Guidelines See 18
States v.
See U.S.
U.S.C.
offense.
(c) (1998).
France,
2Dl.l(a),
Cir.1998),
The court
Manual
cert, denied,
applied a three-level enhancement for
then
527 U.S.
119 S.Ct.
(1999).
supervisor manager
as a
role
sulting
II.
For
drug
for the
distribution count.
the
Bartley first
the two con-
argues
the district
spiracy
counts should have been
offense level of 23
assigned
court
a base
adjusted
in calculating his combined
of-
2S1.1(a)(1)
applied
under U.S.S.G.
fense level. Section 3D1.2 of the Sentenc-
the same three-level enhancement based
provides
ing
grouping
Guidelines
for the
of
in the offense. The court
on
role
counts,
“in-
closely related
or those that
applied
then
another three-level enhance-
substantially the same harm.” The
volv[e]
Bartley’s knowledge
ment based
identify
Guidelines
four situations which
proceeds
the laundered funds were
grouped together
counts should
sen-
2Sl.l(b)(l),
resulting
under U.S.S.G.
purposes:
tencing
adjusted
an
offense level of 29 for this
(a)
involve the same victim
When counts
count.
and the same act or transaction.
group
The district court did not
the two
(b) When counts involve the same victim
conspiracy
together
single
into a
and two or more acts or transactions
Chapter
D
of
“Group” under Part
the
connected
a common criminal ob-
Instead,
Sentencing Guidelines.
the court
jective
constituting part
of a com-
distinct, and, in
the two counts as
treated
plan.
mon scheme or
3D1.4(a),
with
accordance
(c)
embodies
When one of the counts
greater
court
with
of the two
started
conduct that is treated as
drug conspira-
for the
offense levels—
in, or other ad-
offense characteristic
cy
then added two more levels be-
—and
to,
justment
guideline applicable
adjusted
cause the
offense level for the
to another of the counts.
money laundering conspiracy
only
was
(d) When the offense level is determined
levels less serious than that for the
largely on the basis of the total
conspiracy.
This resulted
combined
loss,
quantity
amount of harm or
adjusted
Finally,
offense level
involved,
of a
or some oth-
substance
court
with a three-level
credited
harm, or if
aggregate
er measure of
adjustment
acceptance
for his
downward
3E1.1,
ongoing
behavior is
offense
responsibility,
see id.
for a
in nature and the offense
continuous
him
total offense level of
and sentenced
written to cover such
guideline is
imprisonment.
to 109 months
behavior.
appeal, Bartley contends that
On
U.S.S.G. 3D1.2.
failing
the district court erred
pur
In an addendum to
Presen-
conspiracies
sentencing
the two
(PSR),
Report
probation
officer
poses.
govern
also contends that the
tence
He
application note
sup
cited subsection
ment offered insufficient evidence
explain why
conspir-
port
imposition
district court’s
of the
he treated
In the
acy
separate groups.
role in the
alleged
enhancements for his
counts as
opinion,
conspiracies
harmed
conspiracies. We review a district court’s officer’s
and therefore did
interpretation
Sentencing
distinct societal interests
legal
novo,
victim.”
v. not involve “the same
Guidelines de
see United States
Williams,
Cir.1998),
objected
Although
govern-
to the PSR.
officer’s
agreed
probation
with the
underlying
and its
factual determinations ment
(b),
brought
it also
analysis
for clear error.
of subsection
applying the Guidelines
conspiracy to launder
level for the
poten-
attention the
offense
court’s
to the district
court, as recommended
money,
a basis
the district
as
tial
of subsection
relevance
PSR,
one
enhance-
applied
counts as
a three-level
treating
Nonetheless,
refusing
Bartley “knew or believed
group.
ment because
offenses,
simply de-
court
an
the district
the funds were
conspiracies
each of
termined that
...
activity involving the
distri-
unlawful
and did
interest
harmed a distinct societal
narcotics or other controlled sub-
bution of
required
2Sl.l(b)(l).
“the same victim”
not involve
In this
stances.” U.S.S.G.
(b); the court never reached
case,
grouping under subsection
on the basis of
question
circuit to consider
required. As
(c).
dis-
*4
explained:
charges,
tribution
assume,
appeal, we
purposes
For
of this
conspiracies im-
deciding, that the
without
were counted twice
drug
Rice’s
interests, and so
different societal
pact
sentence;
as the basis
toward his
once
(b)
counts under subsection
grouping the
counts,
drug
conviction on his
for his
v.
improper. See United States
would be
specific
offense character-
again
as
(11th Cir.1992)
321,
F.2d
322
Harper, 972
count.
istic of
(b));
group under subsection
(refusing to
Rice’s
increasing
This had the effect of
Gallo,
824
by
level
three
money laundering offense
Cir.1991) (same).
(5th
But see United
2Sl.l(b)
§
he knew
pursuant to
because
Lopez,
1150-51
receiving
the funds he was
or believed
(9th Cir.1997) (grouping under subsection
unlawful
proceed[s]
dis-
Sentencing
proper); United States
Therefore,
marijuana....
tribution of
Commission,
Frequently
Most
Asked
we find that Rice’s offense behavior
Questions
Sentencing
About
Guide-
impermissibly double counted. Accord-
1994)
(“Most
lines,
Fre-
20-21
ed.
ingly, we hold that
the district court
Questions”)
un-
(grouping
quently Asked
failing
erred in
Rice’s counts
(c)
(a), (b),
proper).1
or
der subsections
sentencing purposes
required
as
3D1.2, however,
§
commentary
pro-
(c).
subsection
“[cjounts
...
grouped
are to be
vides that
Rice,
F.3d
United States v.
any
if
one or more of the subsections
(5th Cir.1999).
provide
grouping.”
such
U.S.S.G.
comment, (n.l)
added);
3D1.2,
(emphasis
the Fifth
reaching
holding
In
this
Cir-
comment,
(“Counts
id.,
(backg’d.)
also
see
cuit relied on its earlier decision United
(or
victims
societal
involving different
Haltom,
States v.
crimes)
harms in the case of ‘victimless’
Cir.1997), which
one count of mail
involved
together only
provided
as
grouped
fraud and four counts of tax evasion. The
(d).”).
Thus,
if
even
or
(c) re-
Haltom court held that subsection
improper under subsec-
grouping would be
quired
grouped
the counts to be
where
(b), may
proper under another
tion
applied a two-level en-
the district court
subsection.
2T1.1(b)(1)
hancement under U.S.S.G.
the offense level for the tax
calculating
counting,”
“double
sub
prevent
To
counts because the defendant’s
evasion
offenses to be
requires
section
from criminal
unreported income derived
when one count “embodies conduct that is
i.e., mail fraud. The court ex-
activity,
treated
offense characteristic
as
to,”
plained
“[b]y requiring
in,
adjustment
the offense
or other
Haltom’s[offenses],
spare
count.
level calculation of
the other
1.2(c);
any
punishment
incremental
for his
id.
him
U.S.S.G. 3D
see also
comment, (n.5).
clearly
tax
calculating
[T]he
In
crimes....
length
I of the dissent.
Accordingly, we
ad-
dressed at
in Part
do not reach
issue
using
drug conspiracy
...
the mail fraud count to
rored
count. To
forbid
for tax evasion
enhance the offense level
adopt
argument
promote
would
an
tax evasion
using
and then
the enhanced
approach
Sentencing
Guidelines
level
offense level to increase the offense
require
would
district courts to unneces-
(emphasis
mail
were “conduct” embodied provides sentencing for a enhancement violations, there charging a count manager the defendant was a “[i]f or su Lombardi, is none here. Unlike (but leader) pervisor organizer not an clearly quite charges case the indictment activity and the criminal involved five or drug conspiracy that includes use of more participants or was otherwise exten proceeds laundering to facilitate 3Bl.l(b). sive.” U.S.S.G. The commen Therefore, illegal drug distribution. after tary to this section also states “[a]n district court enhanced mon- upward departure may be warranted ... ey sentence because his in the case of a defendaht who did not pro- were laundered funds lead, organize, manage, supervise an a drug ceeds of the court participant, other but who nevertheless ex should have management ercised responsibility over counts. assets, property, or activities of a crim Sentencing has ex- Commission 3B1.1, organization.” inal Id. comment. plained provisions gov- that the Guidelines comment, (n.2); (n.4) see (identify also id. erning grouping multiple counts are ing relevant factors to consider evaluat intended to enhance a defendant’s sen- ing the role of a defendant criminal multiple “repre- tence if the addition, activity). In the enhancement is sent additional conduct that is not other- justified if the managed defendant or su guidelines.” wise accounted pervised the activities of at least one other intro, D, Ch. Pt. comment. person in a scheme that involved five or Therefore, grouping appropriate in more participants. See United States v. drug conspiracy case because the Capers, 61 F.3d 1108-09 Cir. count, indictment, forth in as set “em- 1995); Brown, United States v. bodies conduct”-— Cir.1998); 485-86 illegal drug funds (2d Payne, Cir. (and knowledge distribution of that con- 1995).5 *7 duct) treated as a [wa]s —“that supports The record the district in” calculating offense characteristic Bartley that finding manager court’s was a offense level for the con- supervisor conspiracies. or in each of the 3D1.2(e); spiracy count. U.S.S.G. see government presented that comment, evidence 2S1.1, (backg’d). also id. Ac- Bartley controlled the activities of other cordingly, the district court' in failing erred participants distribution con group counts. spiracy by directing one of his street deal identify Parkersburg, ers to addresses in
III. Virginia, packages West where the of mar Baftley ijuana sent, contends that the district court could be and sending his finding also girlfriend Virginia.on erred that he exercised a to West at least one managerial supervisory or role in the con- transport drugs. occasion to The rec spiracies, finding justi- the court used to ord also indicates from the time Bart fy a three-level enhancement in calculating ley conspiracy, became involved he assuming adjustment acceptance Bartley conspira- an of does not contest that the responsibility); grouping not the counts re- participants. involved five or more cies level sults total offense of 30. Either
way, Bartley's greater degree
culpability
participating
conspiracies
in both
is re-
higher
flected in a
total offense level.
Gallo,
v.
927 F.2d
by United States
responsibility”
management
“exercised
Cir.1991)
(same); with United States
(5th
han-
payment,
terms of
and
setting prices
(9th Cir.1997)
Lopez,
F.3d 1149
v.
logistics
arranging the
dling proceeds,
(b)). Like
under subsection
(grouping
to his
deliveries,
giving advice
wise,
among the
disagreement
there is a
prod-
market the
how to
street dealers
offenses are sufficient
circuits as to
which
regard to
uct. With
under
grouping
to merit
ly related
directed
repeatedly
3D1.2(c).
United
Compare
the U.S.S.G.
proceeds from
transfer
to wire
others
Lombardi,
IV. money laun- that his Bartley contends should dering reasons, reverse the we For the above 3D1.2(b). I under dis- the con- refusal to district court’s agree. counts, we affirm the sentenc- spiracy but imposed for ing enhancements mandates Subsection conspiracy. We vacate role in each victim and counts involve the same “[w]hen dis- sentence and remand case [are] or more acts or transactions with resentencing trict court for consistent objective connected com-mon criminal opinion. of a common scheme part or constitute] 3D1.2(b). *8 In cases such plan.” U.S.S.G. PART, IN REVERSED AFFIRMED victim, this, society large at is as where PART, PART, IN AND IN VACATED (b) purposes the “victim” for REMANDED interest that is harmed.” “is the societal comment, (n.2). Id. guide- The WILKINSON, dissenting: Judge, Chief cases, the counts explain in such lines respectfully I dissent from “the socie- when together offenses which interests are harmed tal is a conflict square There was convicted. Id. related.” regarding whether to among circuits with under problem The basic and narcotics dis- stat- the narcotics under tribution money laundering statute 3D1.2(b). and the Compare utes See (11th Cir.1992) separate 321, protect societal interests. Harper, 972 F.2d 322 321, Harper, (b)); 972 322 United States v. F.2d (refusing to under subsection
675 (11th Cir.1992) (holding that narcotics dis- the bill noted that although already it was possible tribution increases violence and threatens under the Internal Revenue Code public money health while laundering prosecute individuals for tax facilitating evasion, integrity lawfully operat- threatens the Congress determined that there institutions); ing financial United States v. existed a special need for “a penalty for Gallo, (5th 815, Cir.1991) 927 F.2d 824 job those whose it is to unreported launder (same). Quite simply, may one 99-433, launder income.” Rep. S. No. at 11. money without participating narcotics Second, money laundering statute may and one participate in a protect aims to integrity of financial narcotics conspiracy without laundering institutions. There is a wholly separate different, money. Each crime is and each societal interest in protecting integrity inflicts upon society. distinct harms of such given institutions their key role in
Congress recognized as much country’s when it economy. “While both [nar- passed statute. See cotics money distribution and laundering] Money Laundering Control Act of polity, 1986 taint our the former peo- taints our 1352, (1994). §§ ple; 18 U.S.C. 1956-57 The injures their bodies and then- report Senate clear makes that the bill was institutions; minds. The latter taints our intended to create a “new Federal offense it uses legitimate otherwise means to against money laundering.” Rep. S. No. transfer or illegitimate gains.” hide Unit- (1986). 99-433, reason, at 4 For 1149, Con ed v. Lopez, States 104 F.3d (9th Cir.1997) gress designed money laundering (Fernandez, J., stat dissenting). target ute to conduct other than that which Congress recognized money launder- generated “dirty” money. placed The Act ing financial institutions at risk. provides punishment S.Rep. 99-433, conduct under No. at 2 (“[Organized subsequent taken to the underlying crime today crime uses banks and other financial merely rather than affording an alterna routinely, institutions as if frequent- not as businesses.”). tive means of punishing underlying ly, legitimate Bank em- Holmes, crime itself. See United ployees States v. could be enticed to aid criminals in (2d Cir.1995); 44 F.3d money. their schemes to launder Public Pierro, confidence in financial institutions could be Cir.l994); Edgmon, United States v. they undermined if it were revealed that 1206, 1213-14 Cir.1991). served underworld clients. In order to institutions, protect money financial protected by societal interests good statute creates a faith de- money laundering statute thus differ from fense for financial institutions that inform the societal protected by interests the drug law enforcement officials about customers laws. See Heaps, United States v. they suspect laundering. See Cir.1994) (in creating the Laundering Money Control Act of 1986 statute, “Congress in- 3403(c) (1994). U.S.C. prevent tended to an ill other than those Act requires Attorney also General to laws”). already prohibited by other report regulators to bank laun- First, are at differences least threefold. dering any convictions of financial institu- laws, contrast to the narcotics employee. tion’s officer or See 18 U.S.C. laundering statute is concerned with col- *9 § 1956(g). lecting tax revenue on income from illicit sources. applies Finally, importantly, Section 1956 to individu- the mon- and.most als who money ey launder “with intent to designed pre- statute is criminals, engage constituting variety conduct a vent just drug violation of dealers, of 7201 section or 7206 of the Internal enjoying profits from the of their Revenue Code of 1986.” 18 illicit prohibi- U.S.C. activities. Section 1956’s 1956(a)(l)(A)(ii). § report solely The Senate tions do not extend 676 his of Rather, operation independently narcotics section distribution. narcotics Finally, the from, laundering activities. money other among profits applies 1956 Union’s wire mur of the Western prostitution, integrity illegal gambling,
things,
embezzlement,
by
der-for-hire,
loansharking,
transfer business
tested
exploited
18
laundering.
U.S.C. money
extortion. See
bribery, and
1997).
1956(c)(7)(1994
good will
reputation
III
Supp.
&
Western Union’s
about
the authorities
to deceive
order
illuminates
wide net of section
This
enterprise.
role in the narcotics
his
Ninth Circuit’s
the
shortcomings of
Lopez,
analysis
protected
interests
the societal
Because
Cir.1997)
curiam),
(per
F.3d
narcotics
laundering and
by
money
case,
relies.
In that
upon
distinct,
court
the district
are
statutes
that the so-
Ninth Circuit determined
of-
group Bartley’s
refused
properly
money
protected
interests
cietal
(b).
fenses under subsection
trafficking
and the
laundering statute
money
because
closely
related
statutes
II.
“to obtain
drug dealers
laundering allows
illicit
gained from
benefits of income
majority
contends
The text of drafting indictments. That (c), state of affairs attempt subsection its to call Bart- directly contradicts knowledge guidelines’ ley’s purposes conduct for stated 3D1.2(c). (c) § purpose Subsection significance mandates “limit the of the grouping “when one of the counts embod- formal charging decision.” e.g., See ies conduct that specific is treated as a 3D, § U.S.S.G. Introductory Commentary. offense characteristic” another of the all, Above the majority’s analysis has di- 3D1.2(e) § (emphasis counts. U.S.S.G. verted the grouping inquiry away from the added). majority The argues that plain text of the guidelines. put, Simply interpreted term “conduct” should 3D1.2(c) § hinges conduct, on Bartley’s broadly to include everything alleged in specific while the enhancement for money Bartley’s drug conspiracy charge. Specifi- 2Sl.l(b)(l) § laundering under hinges on cally, the majority argues since the Bartley’s knowledge.1 drug conspiracy charge alleged Bartley laundered order finance his majority’s mistake is thus funda- activities, ongoing drug Bartley’s “knowl- apply mental. It fails to guidelines edge” that the laundered funds were the terms, (c) written. By very its subsection proceeds activity of narcotics should some- applicable is not Bartley. To repeat,
how count as
purposes
“conduct” for
grouping
mandates
“when
3D1.2(c).
See ante at 671-72.
one of the counts embodies conduct that is
In the
avoiding
course of
the clear text
specific
treated as a
offense characteristic”
guidelines, my
colleagues em-
good
in another of
counts. U.S.S.G.
phasize the
language
used
in-
3D1.2(c)
added).
(emphasis
The “con-
dictment rather than
legal
elements of duct” embodied in Bartley’s narcotics
his
offenses. See ante at 672. The
count is his
drugs, coupled
distribution of
majority offers
support
no
guide-
with the
to distribute.
See
lines or the
for its view that the
caselaw
(1994).
841(a)(1),
§§
U.S.C.
spe-
factual averments of the indictment are
cific offense
in Bartley’s
characteristic
dispositive.
that,
suggest
if money laundering
crime is his
anything,
particular
elements
of-
that the money being laundered came from
fenses are the
factor
critical
of narcotics transactions.
3D1.2(c)
grouping determination.
In-
2Sl.l(b)(l).
See U.S.S.G.
While
ma-
deed,
use the words
jority attempts
to characterize
“counts” and
interchangeably.
“offenses”
knowledge as
embodied
“conduct”
in the
e.g.,
3D,
Introductory Com-
count,
only ignores
this not
the clear
(“[Cjounts
mentary,
to-
3D1.2(c),
text of
but also
conflates
gether are
constituting
treated as
a single
two theoretical
pillars
criminal law—
purposes
offense for
guidelines.”).
of the
actus reus and mens rea. See United
contrast,
By
majority’s
approach would
States v.
Lombardi
sentencing
force
pore
courts to
over the
Cir.1993) (“It happens that
[the defen-
in every
averments
indictment
knowledge dant’s]
funds’ source de-
order to determine
whether
rives from the fact that he committed
appropriate.
[mail
This reading makes
fraud],
grouping inquiry even
but that does
complex
more
than
not make the fraudu-
Moreover,
already
it
is.
the majority’s
lent acts
thing
the same
as knowledge of
assertion,
Rather,
Contrary
majority's
simply
scheme.
group-
follows the
interpretation of does not seek
ing analysis
guidelines require.
that promote
a "one-size-fits-all”
*11
com-
ly related.”
them.”)-2
(n.5)
under subsection
(grouping
ment.
the First Circuit’s
fact that
Despite the
are
“if the offenses
only permissible
is
interplay
the
involved
in Lombardi
opinion
related.”).
provide
The
closely
fraud, rath-
mail
laundering and
money
as
count
which offenses
just
examples
narcotics
and
laundering
money
er than
instance,
guide-
the
related.” For
“closely
in-
valuable
distribution,
offers
that case
“use of a firearm
that the
lines note
analysis.
on the subsection
sights
possession
robbery and unlawful
to
bank
that
determined
court
Lombardi
to
sufficiently related
mail
are
laundering and
that
firearm
money
the defendant’s
contrast, “if
disturbing
a
By
create
Id.
grouping.”
would
fraud offenses
warrant
application.
guideline’s
of one count
anomaly in the
convicted
were
the defendant
launders
a
and
fraud
bribing
who commits
“One
one count
fraud and
of securities
source)
knowing of its
(thereby
money
fraud,
that
public official
facilitate
one who
culpable than
normally more
is
grouped togeth-
would not be
its
money knowing of
merely launders
er.” Id.
interpretation
if Lombardi’s
source. Yet
charges for
me that
appears
It
get ex-
would
adopted, a defendant
and
robbery
firearm in
bank
of a
use
level whether
total offense
actly the same
firearm are
same
of that
possession
for
fraud or
the mail
committed
the defendant
for
charges
than
closely
more
related
had com-
else
merely
that someone
knew
drug
and
Lombardi,
laundering
distribution.
money
at 571.
it.”
mitted
above,
Congress intended
As noted
ignores
majority’s analysis
to constitute
laundering statute
money
Circuit
identified
anomaly
First
offense,”
Rep. No. 99-
S.
Federal
“new
are
Bartley’s
If
offenses
Lombardi.
(1986),
stat-
designed
it
at
the same
Bartley would receive
grouped,
that
conduct other
than
target
ute to
level for his
total offense
See,
money.
“dirty”
generated
which
drug dealer who
run-of-the-mill
as would a
679 “closely way guide- related” is no reason to group his two crimes for lines envisioned.. sentencing purposes. Congress intended for drug trafficking money laundering however, majority argues, crimes, separate constitute and the Sen- closely offenses are related since tencing Commission intended not group money laundered in order to facili- them. Bartley separate committed two purchases. tate additional narcotics offenses and inflicted two distinct harms ante at 673. Neither the nor upon society. majority’s approach statute, however, so, consolidates these harms. In doing provide any basis for this distinction. The has underestimated the full per- extent of guidelines considered a example similar sonal devastation and corrup- institutional where a second crime was committed in tion that narcotics enterprises cause. order to facilitate the first. The determined that appro- was not I would affirm the judgment. priate in that case. See U.S.S.G. comment, (n.5). Likewise, plain text of applies statute equally laundering committed
with an intent to facilitate ongoing criminal
activity laundering that does
not facilitate such activity. See 18 U.S.C. Stanley SANDERS, 1956(a)(1). Petitioner- Appellant, majority point decries the two in- in Bartley’s
crease total offense level that results from 3D1.2’s unwillingness to EASLEY, Attorney Michael F. General noted, his offenses.3 It should be Carolina; State of North R.C. however, that guideline the same Lee, Warden, Prison, Raleigh, Central manage rules to combine a level 31 offense Carolina, Respondents-Appel North (for distribution) narcotics with a level 29 lees. (for money offense laundering) produce 00-2. No. (instead a combined offense of 33 60) final'adjustment.4 before the This is a United States Appeals, Court of show of “charity far more significant than Fourth Circuit. point increase that is at issue Lombardi, 26, here.” Argued: Sept. United States v. 5 F.3d 568, Cir.1993). 31, Decided: Oct.
III.
That money laundering offense loosely
is related to his narcotics activities 3D1.2(d) above, 3. U.S.S.G. lists individual of I believe and nar- fenses, including money laundering and nar cotics distribution are not related. See distribution, eligible group cotics that are 321, Harper, also United States v. 972 F.2d However, ing. may only (11th Cir.1992) (refusing these (d) they under subsection if "closely relat (d)); offenses under subsection Walker, 163, ed.” United States v. 112 F.3d Lopez, 104 F.3d 1153-54 Cir. 1997) (citing Cir. United States v. 1997) J., (Fernandez, (same). dissenting) Porter, (4th Cir.1990)); 792-93 Napoli, see also United States v. grouped, If the Bartley's counts are (2d 1999) ("[T]he total n. 4 appearance Cir. mere offense level would be 31 rather than fraud and on subsection (d)'s grouped’ adjustment list of before acceptance counts 'to be the final insuffi they placed cient to establish should be responsibility. single group.”). For the reasons stated