USA v. Carlos Linare

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-30650 Affirmed] Judge: CDK, Judge: JLD, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 07/13/2017 for Appellant Carlos L. Linares [16-30650]

Case: 16-30650

Document: 00514045252

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-30650
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 22, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CARLOS L. LINARES,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:15-CR-71-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

A jury convicted Carlos L. Linares of aiding and abetting the theft of
government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2 (Count One); failure
to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, in violation of
31 U.S.C. §§ 5318(h) and 5322 (Count Two); and obstruction of a proceeding
before a federal agency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Counts Three and

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 16-30650

Document: 00514045252

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

No. 16-30650
Four). On appeal, Linares argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
his convictions.
Linares did not renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close
of all the evidence. Accordingly, Linares has waived any objection to the denial
of his motion, and our review is “limited to determining whether there was a
manifest miscarriage of justice.” See United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d 264,
274 (5th Cir. 2001).
With respect to Count One, the only argument that Linares raises is that
the Government failed to sufficiently prove that he acted knowingly or with
fraudulent intent. To establish a violation of § 641, the Government was
required to prove in relevant part that Linares stole or knowingly converted
money or property to his use or the use of another and that he did so knowing
that the money or property was not his and with the intent to deprive the
owner of the use or benefit of the money or property. See FIFTH CIRCUIT
PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL), No. 2.27.
There was no dispute that from March 2012 through May 2013, Linares
cashed more than 270 fraudulent and/or stolen United States Treasury checks,
causing more than $1.6 million in loss. At trial, the Government introduced
evidence that Linares accepted, cashed, and deposited hundreds of thousands
of dollars’ worth of Treasury checks that no reasonable person would have
accepted. As an example, Linares cashed a check where the payee’s name
appeared as “%NA” with an address in Tampa, Florida. For more than 100 of
the checks Linares cashed, he failed to verify and/or retain a copy of the
customer’s identification. Of the checks he verified, he often accepted IDs that
were obviously fraudulent.

2

Case: 16-30650

Document: 00514045252

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

No. 16-30650
The Government presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that
Linares knew he was cashing fraudulent checks. 1 Linares has failed to show
that his conviction on Count One was a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Delgado, 256 F.3d at 274.
As for Count Two, to establish a violation of §§ 5318 and 5322, the
Government was required to prove, in part, that Linares did not have a written
anti-money laundering program in place at his business; that the anti-money
laundering program, if any, failed to meet certain minimum requirements
outlined in the regulations; and that he acted willfully.

Because Linares

operated a money service business, he was required to comply with the Bank
Secrecy Act (BSA) and have an effective anti-money laundering program in
place at his business. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 5318(h); 5312(a)(2)(K).
The evidence at trial established that, from the date of the first Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) compliance exam in 2010 through at least early 2014,
Linares was never in compliance with the BSA. The IRS examiner told Linares
that he was subject to the BSA in 2010; Linares received written guidance from
the IRS regarding his obligations under the BSA; and Linares certified in 2009
and in 2012 that he was aware that he was subject to the BSA. The evidence
provided a sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that Linares was fully aware
of his obligations under the BSA and that he deliberately chose not to comply.
Linares’s claim to the contrary is without merit. See Delgado, 256 F.3d at 274.
Count Three charged Linares with obstructing the 2010 IRS compliance
examination. Count Four was based on the 2013 exam. To establish each
offense, the Government was required to prove, in part, that Linares knew that
The district court also provided the jury with this Circuit’s pattern instruction on
deliberate ignorance, and advised the jury, “you may find that the defendant had knowledge
of a fact if you find that the defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what otherwise would
have been obvious to him.” See FIFTH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTION (CRIMINAL),
No. 1.37A.
1

3

Case: 16-30650

Document: 00514045252

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

No. 16-30650
a proceeding was pending before a federal agency and that he corruptly
endeavored

to

influence,

obstruct,

or

impede

the

due

and

proper

administration of the law under which the proceeding was being conducted.
As relevant to Count Three, Linares failed to provide the IRS examiner
with copies of any checks, but a later federal search led agents to recover
numerous checks that would have been responsive to the examiner’s request.
Additionally, Linares told the examiner (1) that he did not cash checks worth
more than $5,000, and (2) that he did not allow customers to cash more than
$5,000 in checks at a time. The evidence proved that both statements were
false.
Finally, as to Count Four, Linares refused to provide a second IRS
examiner with copies of any checks or identification cards. But the federal
search revealed that Linares had in his possession over 90 different checks and
more than 150 different identification cards that he had not provided to the
IRS. Linares told the IRS examiner (1) that he did not allow customers to cash
more than $10,000 worth of checks in a single day; (2) that he “very rarely”
allowed customers to cash more than one check at a time; and (3) that the vast
majority of his customers were “regulars” who “lived or worked in the
community.” The evidence proved that all three representations were false.
Linares attempts to attack these convictions based on an alleged
“language and comprehension barrier.” Both IRS examiners testified that they
had no trouble communicating with Linares and that he never gave them any
indication that he did not fully understand them. Indeed, Linares admitted
during questioning from his attorney that he frequently communicates with
others in English and “understand[s] generally what’s being said.” Linares’s
attempt to attack the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to Counts Three
and Four based on an alleged language barrier is without merit.

4

Case: 16-30650

Document: 00514045252

Page: 5

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

No. 16-30650
Based on the evidence presented, a reasonable jury was entitled to find
that Linares intentionally lied to the IRS examiners and refused to provide
them with relevant documents that they had requested in the course of their
compliance examinations. Linares had failed to show that his convictions
amount to “a manifest miscarriage of justice.” See Delgado, 256 F.3d at 274.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

5