Diego Villalobos, Jr. v. Rachel Chapa ( 2014 )

Case: 13-51122 Document: 00512703837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-51122
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 18, 2014
DIEGO VILLALOBOS, JR.,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
RACHEL CHAPA,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:13-CV-296
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Diego Villalobos, Jr., federal prisoner # 64259-180, appeals the dismissal
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition wherein he challenged his conviction for
conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. The district court dismissed the
petition, finding that Villalobos failed to satisfy the requirements to proceed
under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-51122 Document: 00512703837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2014
No. 13-51122
Under § 2241, this court reviews findings of fact for clear error and
conclusions of law de novo. Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir.
2003). Villalobos’s challenge to the dismissal of the claim that his conviction
was invalid in light of United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), is
conclusory and offers no meaningful analysis of the district court’s decision. As
noted by the district court, this court, interpreting Santos, has held that where
a defendant is convicted of laundering proceeds from the sale of drugs, the term
“proceeds” means receipts rather than profits. Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433,
436 (5th Cir. 2011). Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that the
holding of Santos does not undermine Villalobos’s conviction for conspiracy to
launder money.
For the first time on appeal, Villalobos contends that his conviction for
money laundering is invalid in light of Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550
(2008), and that this claim may proceed under the savings clause. Because
Villalobos’s challenge to his conviction based on the holding of Cuellar was not
raised in the district court, we will not consider the argument on appeal. See
Wilson, 643 F.3d at 435 n.1.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2