Michael Wilson v. John Fox
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-40927 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: EBC , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 07/05/2013; denying motion for reconsideration filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Fitzgerald Wilson [7311145-2] [12-40927]
Date Filed: 05/13/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
May 13, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
MICHAEL FITZGERALD WILSON,
JOHN FOX, Warden,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:09-CV-457
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Michael Fitzgerald Wilson, federal prisoner # 23047-077, has appealed the
district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging his convictions of aiding and abetting money laundering. United
States v. Wilson, 77 F.3d 105, 108-09 (5th Cir. 1996). Wilson contends that he
was convicted of a nonexistent offense in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in
Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008), and that the district court erred
in refusing to permit him to challenge his convictions in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 05/13/2013
petition under the Savings Clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
See Jeffers v.
Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). Wilson bears the burden of
showing, inter alia, that his claims are “based on a retroactively applicable
Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been
convicted of a nonexistent offense.” Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d
893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).
Wilson’s money laundering convictions were for violations of 18 U.S.C.
Wilson, 77 F.3d at 108.
To obtain a conviction, the
Government had to prove “that Wilson (1) conducted or attempted to conduct a
financial transaction, (2) which the defendant knew involved the proceeds of
unlawful activity, and (3) with the intent to conceal or disguise the nature,
location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of unlawful activity.” Id.
To satisfy the concealment requirement there must be proof that the purpose of
the transaction was to conceal or disguise a listed attribute. Cuellar, 553 U.S.
at 566-57; see also United States v. Brown, 553 F.3d 768, 787 (5th Cir. 2008).
This court’s analysis of Wilson’s three financial transactions on direct
appeal was consistent with Cuellar, in that it focused on the reasons why the
transactions were conducted rather than how they were conducted. See 553 U.S.
at 566. The evidence supported a conclusion that Wilson’s actions violated the
statute because he acted with the purpose of hiding the fact that the money he
used was derived from his drug trafficking activities. See Wilson, 77 F.3d at 109
(distinguishing United States v. Sanders, 929 F.2d 1466, 1470-73 (10th Cir.
1991), and quoting United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 966 F.2d 918, 925 (5th
His actions were designed to make it more difficult for the
Government to trace and demonstrate the nature of the funds. See Brown, 553
F.3d at 787. Wilson has not shown that he was convicted of a nonexistent
offense in light of Cuellar. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d at 904. The judgment
is AFFIRMED. Wilson’s motion for leave to file a reply brief out of time is
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?