United States v. Wilson
In United States v. Wilson, No. 23-60101 (5th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions and his 300-month sentence for crimes involving money laundering and distribution of methamphetamine. Wilson raised eight arguments, all of which were rejected by the appellate court. Here, we briefly summarize those rulings.
Ruling 1: There was sufficient evidence to support Wilson’s conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. His was not a mere buyer-seller relationship — which alone would be insufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy to distribute drugs — because he supplied methamphetamine for three years. Also, in the Fifth Circuit “a defendant may be convicted based upon the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator,” and the jury — not the Fifth Circuit — is the judge of each witness’s credibility.
Ruling 2: There was sufficient evidence to support Wilson’s conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering. One witness testified that he would pay Wilson by depositing drug proceeds into various bank accounts, always in amounts under $10,000, which Wilson would then withdraw through cashier’s checks made payable to third parties. That was sufficient to prove an intent to conceal the nature of the money.
Ruling 3: The district court did not err in denying Wilson’s motion to substitute retained counsel for his appointed counsel. Wilson filed that motion ten days before trial, after the case had been pending for more than three years. During that time, Wilson had already had three attorneys, and the trial had been continued numerous times. Those factors were sufficient to affirm the district court’s decision.
Ruling 4: The district court did not err in calculating the drug quantity applicable to setting his base offense level. Although Wilson disputed the district court’s findings of fact, the Fifth Circuit applied its usual test and concluded that “the district court’s factual finding as to the drug quantity was plausible and d[id] not amount to clear error.”
Ruling 5: Wilson appropriately received a two-level enhancement under USSG § 2S1.1(b)(3) for using sophisticated laundering methods. Here, the “use of multistep transactions to avoid reporting requirements and detection was sufficient to justify the two-level sophisticated-laundering enhancement under [Fifth Circuit] precedent.”
Ruling 6: Wilson appropriately received a four-level enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(a) because he was a leader or organizer in a criminal activity involving five or more participants. Wilson argued that he was only a middleman, not a leader, and that the evidence only showed two other conspirators — not “five or more.” The Fifth Circuit quoted and relied upon United States v. Maes, 961 F.3d 366, 378 (5th Cir. 2020), noting several factual similarities. Here, Wilson spent three years “planning, organizing, and executing … a cross-country drug trafficking scheme spanning at least three states.” It was not clear error to apply the four-level leader/organizer enhancement.
Ruling 7: The district court did not commit clear error by applying a two-level enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. An agent testified that he had interviewed several of the Government’s witnesses, and three reported receiving death threats from Wilson. The Fifth Circuit has previously held that an agent’s testimony is sufficient to justify the obstruction enhancement. United States v. West, 58 F.3d 133, 138 (5th Cir. 1995).
Ruling 8: Wilson’s 240-month drug sentence was not unreasonable, even though his co-conspirators received sentences of 116, 90, and 66 months. All three of those defendants pled guilty and cooperated with the Government, and none of them was a leader/organizer like Wilson was.