Moshe Leichner v. Karen Edenfield

Fifth Circuit

Moshe Leichner v. Karen Edenfield

564 F. App'x 80

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2014

Docket13-10836

StatusUnpublished

This text of 564 F. App'x 80 (Moshe Leichner v. Karen Edenfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moshe Leichner v. Karen Edenfield, 564 F. App'x 80 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Moshe Leichner, federal prisoner # 21664-112, pleaded guilty in 2005 to two counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1957, respectively. See United States v. Leichner, 181 Fed.Appx. 634, 635 (9th Cir.2006).

Leichner has appealed the dismissal of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he contended that his money-laundering conviction should be vacated in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 170 L.Ed.2d 912 (2008), and this court’s decision in Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391 (5th Cir.2010). Leichner contended that he should be permitted to assert this issue in a § 2241 proceeding under the Savings Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court held that Leichner could not show that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense in light of Santos. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001).

We assume, without deciding, that Santos applies in the § 1957 context. See United States v. Bush, 626 F.3d 527, 536 (9th Cir.2010); United States v. Kratt, 579 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir.2009). In making the wire transfer underlying the money-laundering offense, which was to fund the purchase of a residence, Leichner was not paying essential expenses of the wire-fraud scheme, which involved foreign-currency trading. See United States v. Kennedy, 707 F.3d 558, 567 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2779, 186 L.Ed.2d 227, and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2785, 186 L.Ed.2d 227 (2013); see also Stewart v. Keffer, 514 Fed.Appx. 504, 507-08 (5th Cir.2013). The wire transfer involved profits of the wire-fraud scheme, which was complete at the time the money-laundering offense occurred. Therefore, no merger problem is presented. See Kennedy, 707 F.3d at 565-67; United States v. Fernandez, 559 F.3d 303, 317 (5th Cir.2009); see also Santos, 553 U.S. at 517, 128 S.Ct. 2020 (“Interpreting ‘proceeds’ to mean ‘profits’ eliminates the merger problem.”). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Moshe Leichner, federal prisoner # 21664-112, pleaded guilty in 2005 to two counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1957, respectively. See United States v. Leichner, 181 Fed.Appx. 634, 635 (9th Cir.2006).

Leichner has appealed the dismissal of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he contended that his money-laundering conviction should be vacated in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 170 L.Ed.2d 912 (2008), and this court’s decision in Garland v. Roy, 615 F.3d 391 (5th Cir.2010). Leichner contended that he should be permitted to assert this issue in a § 2241 proceeding under the Savings Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court held that Leichner could not show that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense in light of Santos. See Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001).

We assume, without deciding, that Santos applies in the § 1957 context. See United States v. Bush, 626 F.3d 527, 536 (9th Cir.2010); United States v. Kratt, 579 F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir.2009). In making the wire transfer underlying the money-laundering offense, which was to fund the purchase of a residence, Leichner was not paying essential expenses of the wire-fraud scheme, which involved foreign-currency trading. See United States v. Kennedy, 707 F.3d 558, 567 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2779, 186 L.Ed.2d 227, and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2785, 186 L.Ed.2d 227 (2013); see also Stewart v. Keffer, 514 Fed.Appx. 504, 507-08 (5th Cir.2013). The wire transfer involved profits of the wire-fraud scheme, which was complete at the time the money-laundering offense occurred. Therefore, no merger problem is presented. See Kennedy, 707 F.3d at 565-67; United States v. Fernandez, 559 F.3d 303, 317 (5th Cir.2009); see also Santos, 553 U.S. at 517, 128 S.Ct. 2020 (“Interpreting ‘proceeds’ to mean ‘profits’ eliminates the merger problem.”). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 F. App'x 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moshe-leichner-v-karen-edenfield-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack