[00:00:00] Speaker 00: Number 21-3053, United States of America versus Calvin O'Toole at balance. [00:00:07] Speaker 00: Mr. Madden for the balance, Mr. Byrne for the appellee. [00:00:15] Speaker 00: Good morning, Mr. Madden. [00:00:18] Speaker 01: I'm Droney Madden, CJA counsel for Calvin O'Toole. [00:00:23] Speaker 01: In brief time, I'd like to talk about three procedural errors, one substantive error, [00:00:28] Speaker 01: We'll rely on our recent castigar issue. [00:00:31] Speaker 01: Defense levels should have been 22, not 26. [00:00:34] Speaker 01: Advisory guidelines should have been 46 to 57, not 70, maybe so. [00:00:39] Speaker 01: The first digital error court found an incorrect base offense level. [00:00:47] Speaker 01: Correctly grouped bait fraud and laundering together, and they correctly concluded that the most serious was money laundering, and therefore money laundering was the [00:00:58] Speaker 01: defense of conviction. [00:01:00] Speaker 01: The court incorrectly found the base level was seven instead of six. [00:01:04] Speaker 01: Defense level or underlying defense from which, I'm sorry, 2S1.1A1 provides that the offense level for the underlying offense from which the longer funds were derived. [00:01:18] Speaker 01: And the underlying offense was bank fraud, so it directs you to 2B1A1. [00:01:22] Speaker 01: And 2B1A1 [00:01:26] Speaker 01: Provides seven if the defendant was convicted of an offense, reference to this guideline. [00:01:33] Speaker 01: And the offense is more than at least 20 years. [00:01:36] Speaker 01: Otherwise, it sits. [00:01:38] Speaker 01: Reference to this guideline is defined in note two, 2B1.1. [00:01:42] Speaker 01: And it provides, for purposes of this section, an offense as reference to this guideline. [00:01:49] Speaker 01: If this guideline is the applicable chapter two guideline, specifically a reference in appendix A, [00:01:54] Speaker 01: as determined by the provisions of 1B12. [00:01:58] Speaker 01: Money laundering is not an offense. [00:02:01] Speaker 01: It's an offensive condition, but it is not listed under 2B1. [00:02:06] Speaker 01: Therefore, it's not an offense reference to this guideline. [00:02:11] Speaker 01: So money laundering is an offensive condition. [00:02:15] Speaker 01: It is not an offense reference to this guideline. [00:02:17] Speaker 01: And therefore, basic offense law should have been 6 and not 7. [00:02:24] Speaker 01: If you were number two, the court incorrectly added four levels of sophisticated conduct, but should have only added two. [00:02:37] Speaker 01: Court added two levels for sophisticated bank fraud and two levels for sophisticated money laundering. [00:02:43] Speaker 01: This is double counting. [00:02:45] Speaker 01: Note six, 2S1.1, which addresses money laundering. [00:02:49] Speaker 01: It mandates that when money laundering is the offensive condition, [00:02:53] Speaker 01: Subsection C to 3D1.2, which addresses groups of closely related counts, is to be used, mandatory. [00:03:03] Speaker 01: The court used subsection D instead, and that makes a difference. [00:03:07] Speaker 01: Subsection C provides that counts are to be grouped together when one of the counts bodies conduct that is treated as a specific offense characteristic in or other adjustment to the guile applicable to another of the counts. [00:03:24] Speaker 01: Note 5, 3D1, explains what that means. [00:03:27] Speaker 01: Note 5 provides section C provides one condom that represents a separate count. [00:03:35] Speaker 01: It's also a specific offense characteristic in order to adjust it to another count to be grouped together. [00:03:43] Speaker 01: This provision, quote, this provision prevents double counting of offense behavior. [00:03:52] Speaker 01: What that means is [00:03:53] Speaker 01: court don't count it. [00:03:55] Speaker 01: This stated, uh, Honda to have only been one kind of nice ones. [00:04:02] Speaker 01: So you remember three is important, correct? [00:04:04] Speaker 01: They added three levels to a Tonio's role in money laundering. [00:04:08] Speaker 01: The correct level is to the court enhanced by three based on conduct that dealt with bank fraud only not to money laundering [00:04:22] Speaker 01: And that is incorrect. [00:04:26] Speaker 01: The court said, the record contains evidence not only that the defendant issued detailed instructions off a lobby, but that he also provided suggestions and instructions to other participants which were acted upon and affected the conduct of a bank scheme. [00:04:44] Speaker 01: This is error. [00:04:46] Speaker 01: Note 2C to 2S1.1B states a relevant part. [00:04:51] Speaker 01: In cases in which subsection A1 applies, which is here, application of any Chapter 3 adjustment, which would be a role adjustment, shall be determined on the offense covered by this guideline. [00:05:05] Speaker 01: That is, laundering criminal direct funds and not on the underlying offense. [00:05:10] Speaker 00: Mr. Madden, I'm not sure that I read the district court's decision quite the same way that you do. [00:05:18] Speaker 00: I mean, doesn't the district court also reference money laundering? [00:05:22] Speaker 00: I mean, some of the discussions are about bank fraud, but I think some of the discussion [00:05:26] Speaker 00: seems to go properly to money laundering. [00:05:29] Speaker 00: And the government's pre-sentence report also focused on this three-level enhancement under the money laundering offenses, not the bank fraud enhancement. [00:05:38] Speaker 00: I mean, doesn't looking at that altogether suggest that there may not have been any? [00:05:43] Speaker 01: Yes, I just want to point out that considering bank fraud is impermissible, the court did look at the money laundering aspects, but we look at the money laundering aspects [00:05:52] Speaker 01: sparing very little there. [00:05:53] Speaker 01: It has to do with my clients supervising anybody on the money laundering side. [00:06:00] Speaker 03: Well, can I ask you about that? [00:06:02] Speaker 03: In the government's brief at page 44, they list what seems to me quite a bit of managerial instructions that your client gave specifically to the money laundering, not to the bank fraud. [00:06:21] Speaker 03: Tonio directed a co-conspirator to complete several debit transactions, issued several checks to co-conspirators to hide stolen funds. [00:06:29] Speaker 03: He directed a co-conspirator to set up a shell company and a bank account. [00:06:33] Speaker 03: He had co-conspirators deposit stolen checks. [00:06:36] Speaker 03: He issued checks to co-conspirators. [00:06:38] Speaker 03: He directed co-conspirators to help set up shell companies. [00:06:40] Speaker 03: There's a lot of directing and instructing there. [00:06:43] Speaker 01: All of that deals with bank fraud. [00:06:47] Speaker 01: If you look at the PSR, there are 58 paragraphs [00:06:51] Speaker 01: dealing with money laundering. [00:06:53] Speaker 01: Now, one of them has enough, Pallavi was not directed to do almost anything. [00:07:01] Speaker 01: And I can go through, I will go through those in just a second. [00:07:06] Speaker 03: We also- So, I mean, and the PSR is sealed, but I think I can refer to page numbers if you have it in front of you. [00:07:12] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:07:17] Speaker 01: It's period, sorry, I don't have that. [00:07:20] Speaker 01: 58 paragraphs. [00:07:22] Speaker 01: I could find that three if you like. [00:07:24] Speaker 03: Well, so in paragraph 71 and 72, again, it seems like it's talking about a lot of money laundering and seems like he's doing a lot of directing. [00:07:43] Speaker 01: Your Honor, at paragraph 37 in the [00:07:46] Speaker 01: In the PSR, he sent a message to Afalabi containing the name of a false alias and address. [00:07:52] Speaker 01: And in paragraph 40, he told Afalabi to obtain a tax information number for Novotel. [00:07:58] Speaker 01: In paragraph 41, he told Afalabi to open a bank account. [00:08:02] Speaker 01: That is it. [00:08:03] Speaker 01: All the others, and there are many, deal with bank fraud. [00:08:08] Speaker 01: Clearly, Netanyahu was directing. [00:08:10] Speaker 01: He recruited a person, called person A, [00:08:15] Speaker 01: He gave her fake ID, he told her to open accounts, he told her specifically what to do. [00:08:19] Speaker 01: And every one of those 15 paragraphs dealing with bank fraud, but that's not something you should consider, or you're not supposed to consider for money laundering. [00:08:28] Speaker 03: That's... Was, oh, you mentioned, was it, wasn't any mentioned? [00:08:34] Speaker 01: Oh, it's, well, the person's name is Walker. [00:08:39] Speaker 01: He recruited her. [00:08:41] Speaker 01: director, micromanager, every step of the way, but it was all bank fraud. [00:08:46] Speaker 03: What, what about, I just want to say the name if it's under steel. [00:08:49] Speaker 03: So you referred to paragraphs 37 of the, of the PSR. [00:08:58] Speaker 03: There's a person mentioned there in addition to your client. [00:09:02] Speaker 03: See that. [00:09:03] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:09:04] Speaker 03: So I have a message to Afalabi. [00:09:06] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:09:06] Speaker 03: So, um, was that regarding the money laundering? [00:09:10] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:09:11] Speaker 03: That's hardly, hardly enough to make him a manager. [00:09:14] Speaker 03: I mean, the case, if I may, the case in this... I mean, is your argument that there weren't five co-conspirators in the money laundering? [00:09:24] Speaker 03: He might have been a co-conspirator, but he wasn't a manager. [00:09:27] Speaker 03: It looks like he's managing Ofalabi. [00:09:31] Speaker 03: Yes, for bank fraud, which is improvised. [00:09:33] Speaker 03: I thought you said this was the money laundering, Ofalabi. [00:09:38] Speaker 01: Paragraphs. [00:09:41] Speaker 01: There are 15 paragraphs dealing with bank fraud, where Atanyu did retain, recruit a person, and directed her every step of the way without any doubt. [00:09:52] Speaker 01: But on the money laundering side, he had very little direction of anybody. [00:09:57] Speaker 01: Two references to Afalabi in that sense. [00:10:01] Speaker 01: And the court had an over-broad view of what it is to be a manager. [00:10:06] Speaker 01: Quote, there can be many, many managers, supervisors, out of all those other people, [00:10:11] Speaker 01: who are involved, who are convicted and subject to sentencing. [00:10:15] Speaker 01: The U.S. [00:10:15] Speaker 01: versus Graham, this circuit says, court found they did not discern any basis in the guidelines for enhancing the sentence of every participant in a conspiracy who does not reside in the Bible layer. [00:10:27] Speaker 03: Can I now take you to JA 181? [00:10:31] Speaker 03: This is the plea hearing, where he pleads guilty and the court's asking him multiple questions. [00:10:40] Speaker 03: He says that he I think this is all related to money laundering. [00:10:47] Speaker 03: So you can correct me if I'm wrong. [00:10:48] Speaker 03: I'm at J 181. [00:10:56] Speaker 01: This is the sentencing transcript. [00:10:58] Speaker 03: I think it's the plea call. [00:11:00] Speaker 03: The hearing where you please guilty. [00:11:07] Speaker 03: I'm looking at page 181. [00:11:08] Speaker 03: OK, so it says, you issued several checks to co-conspirators, including a debit transaction to Maryland LiveCasino. [00:11:18] Speaker 03: Do you know if that's the bank fraud or the money? [00:11:30] Speaker 01: He may have issued checks to them. [00:11:32] Speaker 03: That's not one act. [00:11:34] Speaker 03: I know. [00:11:35] Speaker 03: I've got more. [00:11:35] Speaker 03: I just want to make sure we're talking about the money laundering. [00:11:37] Speaker 01: Well, I'm not entirely sure here. [00:11:40] Speaker 01: I think the PSR is much clearer, but it's hard to say here. [00:11:44] Speaker 03: Well, I won't go through them all, if you're not familiar with them. [00:11:48] Speaker 03: But the government's response brief talks about JA 181 through, I think, JA 196. [00:11:55] Speaker 03: And they say that it's regarding the money laundering, and he's admitting to a lot of directing. [00:12:01] Speaker 03: So I guess, do you have a response to that? [00:12:08] Speaker 01: I do not have a specific response, but I would say, I would. [00:12:11] Speaker 01: So my speculation would be, probably, this deals with the bank. [00:12:16] Speaker 01: That's what he was really focused on. [00:12:18] Speaker 01: He was not a manager on the money laundering side. [00:12:23] Speaker 01: For example, in Graham, the court described, what was it a manager? [00:12:31] Speaker 01: That one, he wasn't a manager because he didn't receive extra compensation, that's true here. [00:12:36] Speaker 01: He did not discipline lower ranking members of the conspiracy, that's true here. [00:12:42] Speaker 01: I did not alter the conspiracy policies or procedures in that respect, that's true here. [00:12:46] Speaker 01: Did not provide any guidance to senior managers and supporters, that's true here. [00:12:50] Speaker 01: Or otherwise held himself out as a link in the chain of command, that's true here. [00:12:55] Speaker 01: At most, like as I said, he gave low level instructions to all of Huff Lobby in an address, [00:13:00] Speaker 01: only get a tax information, uh, tax I d and building a bank. [00:13:05] Speaker 01: That's it. [00:13:07] Speaker 01: And that's not sufficient. [00:13:10] Speaker 00: When you look at my colleagues have any other questions. [00:13:17] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:13:17] Speaker 00: We'll give you a few minutes on rebuttal. [00:13:19] Speaker 00: Um, well, but your time is up. [00:13:22] Speaker 00: So [00:13:41] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:13:43] Speaker 02: Kevin, may it please the court, Kevin Burnett of the United States. [00:13:46] Speaker 02: I will just focus on the issues that appellant raised here at moral argument, so I won't touch on everything in the briefs. [00:13:53] Speaker 02: And I'll just start with the base offense level. [00:13:56] Speaker 02: So the base offense level is seven under a very straightforward reading of the guidelines. [00:14:03] Speaker 02: And I think it's telling that appellants [00:14:05] Speaker 02: Arguments throughout the briefs, and even here, is based on a very convoluted set of cross-references and application notes that he is trying to string together to try to avoid a very straightforward text in the guidelines. [00:14:24] Speaker 02: So everyone agrees that these are grouped together. [00:14:29] Speaker 03: And then if you look at the... Maybe I... I want to come back to that. [00:14:34] Speaker 03: The thing that everybody does agree on. [00:14:35] Speaker 03: I'm not sure. [00:14:36] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:14:38] Speaker 02: So let's start at least from the premise for now then that these counts are grouped together. [00:14:43] Speaker 02: If you then look at guideline 2S1.1, the base offense level for money laundering simply refers you to the guideline for banking. [00:14:55] Speaker 02: It says that the base offense level is the offense level for the underlying offense. [00:15:00] Speaker 02: So whether we're talking about bank fraud, [00:15:03] Speaker 02: in which you would obviously go to 2B1.1. [00:15:05] Speaker 02: Or we're talking about money laundering, which just cross-references you back to bank fraud, you have to go to 2B1.1. [00:15:17] Speaker 02: And 2B1.1 says under A1 that the base offense level is seven if the defendant was convicted of an offense referenced to this guideline. [00:15:30] Speaker 02: An offense. [00:15:32] Speaker 02: any offense that is referenced to this guy. [00:15:36] Speaker 02: An appellant concedes to bank fraud is referenced to 2B1.1. [00:15:43] Speaker 02: He was convicted of it. [00:15:46] Speaker 02: There's no dispute about this. [00:15:47] Speaker 02: He falls within the plain language of A1. [00:15:51] Speaker 02: And there's no dispute about part B, by the way, the sat max of 20 years or more. [00:15:56] Speaker 02: That word, an, is a very important word. [00:16:01] Speaker 02: he has been convicted of an offense. [00:16:03] Speaker 02: So appellant is trying to say, well, he was convicted of money laundering, so forget about the bank fraud. [00:16:08] Speaker 02: That's not what the guidelines said. [00:16:10] Speaker 02: They refer to any offense reference to this guideline and bank fraud is reference to this guideline. [00:16:16] Speaker 02: I think it's telling that appellant cites no court that has been faced with these facts that has adopted his possession. [00:16:25] Speaker 02: The only court [00:16:27] Speaker 02: that has faced these facts has agreed with the government. [00:16:30] Speaker 03: He does say that the sentencing, it's not the commission, maybe it's the commission. [00:16:38] Speaker 03: The probation officer here asked the sentencing commission whether everything you just said is correct. [00:16:45] Speaker 03: And they said no. [00:16:47] Speaker 02: That's correct. [00:16:48] Speaker 02: And the government would disagree with the sentencing commission. [00:16:50] Speaker 02: And I think Judge Howell also disagreed with the sentencing commission in a very respectful way. [00:16:57] Speaker 02: She acknowledged that she has a lot of respect for the sentencing commission and the lawyers who work there, but that she disagreed based on a plain language, plain text of the guideline. [00:17:07] Speaker 03: So, and I guess I'm with you, I think, with everything you just said. [00:17:11] Speaker 03: But I want to go back to where you said everybody agrees, which they do, that the money laundering and the bank fraud start out being grouped together. [00:17:20] Speaker 03: And the guideline that suggests that is 3D 1.2, you could maybe take a look at it if you have it. [00:17:26] Speaker 03: I do, yes. [00:17:27] Speaker 03: 3D1.2C. [00:17:28] Speaker 03: And it says when one of the counts embodies conduct that is treated as a specific offense characteristic in the guideline applicable to another of the counts, you group. [00:17:42] Speaker 03: Here, the bank fraud that he was convicted on happened after, a lot of it at least, happened after the money laundering. [00:17:55] Speaker 03: In other words, [00:17:57] Speaker 03: The money he laundered did not come from the fraud he was convicted. [00:18:03] Speaker 03: Am I right about that? [00:18:05] Speaker 02: Well, the separate counts that he was convicted under bank fraud are separate from the other money laundering schemes. [00:18:16] Speaker 02: I think that's what your honor is getting at. [00:18:17] Speaker 02: So there are four schemes, and the first three schemes which sustain convictions for money laundering [00:18:26] Speaker 02: all happened before the fourth scheme, which is staying the convictions for bank. [00:18:30] Speaker 03: Okay, so bingo. [00:18:32] Speaker 03: So in light of that, not sure if 3D 1.2 C applies because it says you group when one of the counts that would be the money laundering embodies conduct that is treated as specific offense characteristic in the guideline. [00:18:53] Speaker 03: So when [00:18:56] Speaker 03: The money laundering count embodies the bank fraud conduct. [00:19:00] Speaker 03: You group. [00:19:01] Speaker 03: But here, he wasn't convicted of the bank fraud conduct that is embodied in the money laundering conviction. [00:19:09] Speaker 02: Right. [00:19:10] Speaker 02: So a few points on that, I think. [00:19:13] Speaker 02: I still think they group. [00:19:15] Speaker 02: But the government's position has been that they don't group under C, which is what Your Honor is referring to, and that they instead group under D. [00:19:25] Speaker 02: So D says, when the offense level is determined virtually on the basis of the total amount of harm or loss. [00:19:33] Speaker 02: And here, that is true to a large extent because under 2B1.1, we have to add 12 to the offense level because of the aggregates harm. [00:19:46] Speaker 02: The proceeds that Mr. Otonio admitted to obtain are something to obtain. [00:19:51] Speaker 02: And then there's some other language here, which is not applicable. [00:19:55] Speaker 02: You know, you group those offenses together. [00:20:00] Speaker 03: Right. [00:20:00] Speaker 03: So let's say I agree with you on that or tentatively agree with you on that. [00:20:04] Speaker 03: There's a note, I think it's note five, and it says, of course, this rule applies only if the offenses are closely related. [00:20:15] Speaker 03: It is not, for example, the intent of this rule. [00:20:19] Speaker 03: that a bank robbery on one occasion and an assault resulting in bodily injury on another occasion be grouped together. [00:20:27] Speaker 03: What's your argument for why that note does not apply to the situation here? [00:20:34] Speaker 02: Well, just to clarify, is this note five? [00:20:37] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:20:37] Speaker 02: All right. [00:20:37] Speaker 02: So note five is talking about subsection C. That's right. [00:20:40] Speaker 02: Exactly. [00:20:42] Speaker 02: And then just to finish this point, to close the circle on this, if you look at subsection D, [00:20:49] Speaker 02: To be one point one and two S one point one are both listed in that subsection. [00:20:56] Speaker 02: So that they would presumably group together as the district court is here. [00:21:01] Speaker 02: One other point that I just want to make on the base defense level. [00:21:09] Speaker 02: Well, actually, I think I should probably move on on that unless there are further questions because I see my time is running down a little bit. [00:21:16] Speaker 02: I'm good. [00:21:16] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:21:17] Speaker 02: All right. [00:21:17] Speaker 02: So just moving on to sophisticated conduct and the double count. [00:21:22] Speaker 02: So again, part of the penalty here is relying on the C versus D distinction under group. [00:21:29] Speaker 02: You know, he's saying we should have been under C. [00:21:33] Speaker 02: We say it's the, but one thing I want to emphasize to the court is that it doesn't matter either way. [00:21:40] Speaker 02: Because the note that he is pointing to, application note five, is talking about specific offense characteristics. [00:21:49] Speaker 02: And I want to use Rice, which is the case that he cites in his 28J letter, to explain why this situation is different. [00:21:58] Speaker 02: So in Rice, all that Rice decided [00:22:01] Speaker 02: was that because the defendant in that case got an extra enhancement under the money laundering, because the drug offenses basically triggered that specific defense characteristic, that the district court erred by not grouping those together, okay? [00:22:22] Speaker 02: But what Pell is trying to do is he's trying to say something different. [00:22:25] Speaker 02: He's trying to say that the enhancements have to group together. [00:22:31] Speaker 02: that the sophisticated laundering and sophisticated means of bank fraud group together simply because the parents offenses group together. [00:22:42] Speaker 02: And that is not correct. [00:22:44] Speaker 02: There is no support for that in the guidelines. [00:22:46] Speaker 02: It wouldn't be correct if the bank fraud conduct and the money laundering conduct was the same conduct. [00:22:52] Speaker 02: But for reasons we've laid out in our brief, it is not the same conduct. [00:22:55] Speaker 02: Not only has he been convicted of difference, as Judge Walker pointed, different conduct in the bank fraud versus the money laundering counts, but even within the money laundering conspiracies, there's separate conduct in which he has sophisticated bank fraud and sophisticated money laundering. [00:23:12] Speaker 02: And I would point the court to Cabrera, which we cite in our brief, the 11th Circuit, which is on point shutting down an appellant's claim. [00:23:21] Speaker 02: In that count, same exact factual situation. [00:23:25] Speaker 02: Money laundering and bank fraud groups in that case, and the 11th Circuit still applied both enhancements. [00:23:32] Speaker 02: And Kasim is another case that we cite, which has a shorter discussion of this, but does the same thing. [00:23:38] Speaker 02: It implies both enhancements. [00:23:39] Speaker 02: So the district court was correct that because there was separate conduct, Antonio had separate conduct when he did the sophisticated bank fraud versus the sophisticated money laundering, both enhancements apply. [00:23:53] Speaker 02: I see them out of town time. [00:23:54] Speaker 02: I can briefly address manager supervisor, but I think Judge Rao and Judge Walker asked questions and made points that we would we would agree with and just expand upon. [00:24:03] Speaker 02: Um, so if there are no further questions, we would ask that you affirm the judgment of the district. [00:24:14] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:24:14] Speaker 00: Mr Madden will give you two more minutes. [00:24:18] Speaker 01: I would like to address the substantial [00:24:20] Speaker 01: Substantively reasonable sentence argument I can't address because it relates to sophistication. [00:24:28] Speaker 01: If we're right about sophistication, this is irrelevant. [00:24:31] Speaker 01: But if we're wrong about sophistication, then this is highly irrelevant. [00:24:36] Speaker 01: Because under 3553, the court said, I'm going to give you a two-level reduction. [00:24:49] Speaker 01: because sophisticated bank fraud and sophisticated money laundering are one and the same. [00:24:58] Speaker 01: That's what she did. [00:24:59] Speaker 01: That's what the guy was required. [00:25:00] Speaker 01: But if you don't think that is true, what she did for Otunyo, and what she did for OJ, who was a guy much more senior ahead of him in playing field, the court he did. [00:25:11] Speaker 01: He had much more involvement. [00:25:13] Speaker 01: He had a longer criminal history. [00:25:15] Speaker 01: He took more money by far out of this whole scheme, and she gave him a two-level reduction. [00:25:23] Speaker 01: Double county is exactly what we're arguing. [00:25:25] Speaker 01: Here. [00:25:26] Speaker 01: Don't believe that. [00:25:26] Speaker 01: It's here. [00:25:28] Speaker 01: A couple more points. [00:25:48] Speaker 01: Part D, which deals with multiple counts, in the introduction says, when offenses are closely interrelated and money laundering is always interrelated with some other crime, that's by definition. [00:26:04] Speaker 01: When offenses are closely interrelated, group them together for purposes of multi-count rules and use only the offense level for the most serious offense in there. [00:26:15] Speaker 01: What that means is DOJ doesn't want to follow the guidelines. [00:26:18] Speaker 01: But it says, if you arrive at the offense of conviction, which is money laundering, then that is all you use for the sentencing. [00:26:31] Speaker 01: Otherwise, this is a complete mess. [00:26:34] Speaker 01: I promise you, I've taken a lot of time with this. [00:26:36] Speaker 01: And it would be a mess. [00:26:37] Speaker 01: You have to read it literally. [00:26:39] Speaker 01: And when you read it with the notes, this should be a mandatory sentencing. [00:26:44] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:26:44] Speaker 00: Mr Madden, you were appointed by the court to represent the appellant in this case and the court thanks you for your assistance.