USA V. ALEXIS JAIMEZ, No. 19-50253 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, money laundering conspiracy, and conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions. The panel held that sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s conviction for money laundering conspiracy, which required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement to commit money laundering, Defendant knew the objective of the agreement, and Defendant joined the agreement with the intent to further its unlawful purpose. Defendant did not dispute that the CRO conspired to launder money by transferring extortionate “taxes” collected by foot soldiers to incarcerated gang leaders.
The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Defendant himself knew of and intended to support the CRO’s money laundering, and that he was not convicted solely on the basis of his CRO membership. The panel held that, as related to the money laundering conspiracy charge, the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury, in the course of generally defining the term “knowingly,” that the government was “not required to prove that the defendant knew that his acts or omissions were unlawful.”
The panel held that a conspiracy conviction can stand if one of the objects is only factually, but not legally, insufficient. Thus, even if there had been insufficient evidence for money laundering conspiracy, the RICO conviction would still stand because there was sufficient evidence for the other two valid predicate activities, drug distribution conspiracy and extortion.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming Alexis Jaimez’s convictions for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, money laundering conspiracy, and RICO conspiracy, the panel held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions and that Jaimez’s challenges to the jury instructions lacked merit. The evidence at trial showed that Jaimez was a “foot soldier” for the Canta Ranas Organization, or CRO, a violent street gang. The panel held that sufficient evidence supported Jaimez’s conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance (methamphetamine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Specifically, there was sufficient evidence that Jaimez joined the gang’s drug distribution conspiracy knowing its scope and object and intending to help accomplish its purpose. The panel held that sufficient evidence supported Jaimez’s conviction for money laundering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), which required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement to commit money laundering, the defendant knew the objective of the agreement, and the defendant joined the agreement with the intent to further its unlawful purpose. Jaimez did not dispute that the CRO conspired to launder money by transferring extortionate “taxes” collected by foot soldiers to incarcerated gang leaders. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to UNITED STATES V. JAIMEZ 3 the government, the panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Jaimez himself knew of and intended to support the CRO’s money laundering, and that he was not convicted solely on the basis of his CRO membership. The panel held that, as related to the money laundering conspiracy charge, the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury, in the course of generally defining the term “knowingly,” that the government was “not required to prove that the defendant knew that his acts or omissions were unlawful.” The panel held that sufficient evidence supported Jaimez’s conviction for RICO conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), which required the government to present adequate proof of an overall conspiracy to participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the RICO enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering. A pattern of racketeering activity requires proving at least two predicate acts of racketeering. The panel held that because there was sufficient evidence for the drug distribution and money laundering conspiracies, at least two RICO predicates were sufficiently established for purposes of the RICO conspiracy conviction. The panel further concluded that extortion served as another sufficient predicate act. The panel held that a conspiracy conviction can stand if one of the objects is only factually, but not legally, insufficient. Thus, even if there had been insufficient evidence for money laundering conspiracy, the RICO conviction would still stand because there was sufficient evidence for the other two valid predicate activities, drug distribution conspiracy and extortion. The panel addressed additional issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. 4 UNITED STATES V. JAIMEZ Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Owens concurred in Parts I and II.A of the majority opinion, providing an overview of the evidence presented at trial and addressing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, along with most of Part II.C, addressing the RICO conspiracy conviction. Judge Owens dissented from Part II.B, addressing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the money laundering conviction, and the sections of Part II.C that implied that the evidence showed that Jaimez knew the objective of the money laundering conspiracy or joined with the intent to further that purpose. Judge Owens wrote that the government had to prove that Jaimez knew the purpose of the money laundering agreement was to conduct a financial transaction (sending money to incarcerated gang members) and that the transaction was intended to conceal the unlawful sources of the funds (extortion and drug distribution). But the evidence introduced at trial did not show that Jaimez, in his role as a low-ranking foot soldier, either knew that objective or joined the money laundering agreement with the intent to further its purpose.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.