United States v. Jeffery J. Thigpen , 83 F. App'x 156 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-3242
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the District
    v.                                * of Minnesota.
    *
    Jeffery J. Thigpen,                     *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 18, 2003
    Filed: December 22, 2003
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    A 54-count indictment charged Jeffery J. Thigpen with making false statements
    relating to health care matters, health care fraud, and money laundering. The
    Government brought the charges after an investigation revealed Thigpen sought
    reimbursement from Medicaid for transportation services allegedly provided by his
    company, New Life Transportation, and some of the billed services had not been
    provided. A jury convicted Thigpen of 41 of the counts, and the district court*
    *
    The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
    Minnesota.
    sentenced him to 51 months confinement followed by three years of supervised
    release, and ordered him to pay a $4,100 assessment and restitution of $412,438.41.
    Thigpen appeals his money-laundering convictions under 
    18 U.S.C. § 1956
    (a)(1)(A)(i), arguing the government failed to prove the proceeds of the
    unlawful activity were used to further his unlawful scheme. Rather, Thigpen argues
    he paid his drivers’ salaries and his company’s rent from an account into which he
    had deposited tainted and untainted funds. According to Thigpen’s appeal brief,
    during the time he received $800,000 from his fraudulent scheme, he received over
    $200,000 from legitimate business operations, and he was convicted of laundering or
    “reinvesting” some $4,195, an amount that could have been paid out of lawfully
    obtained funds. (Appellant’s Br. at 8-9, 13-14.)
    To sustain a conviction under section 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), the Government needed
    to prove Thigpen “engaged in financial transactions with the knowing use of the
    proceeds of illegal activities” and with the “intent to promote the carrying on” of
    unlawful activity. See United States v. Jolivet, 
    224 F.3d 902
    , 909 (8th Cir. 2000)
    (quoting § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)). In general the Government is not required to exclude
    every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See id. at 907. Contrary to Thigpen’s
    position, the Government was not required to prove no untainted funds were involved
    to sustain his conviction. See United States v. Moore, 
    27 F.3d 969
    , 977 (4th Cir.) (“A
    requirement that the government trace each dollar of the transaction to the criminal,
    as opposed to the non-criminal activity, would allow individuals effectively to defeat
    prosecution for money laundering by simply commingling legitimate funds with
    criminal proceeds.”), cert. denied, 
    513 U.S. 979
     (1994). Accordingly, we affirm.
    LAY, Circuit Judge, concurs only in the result.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3242

Citation Numbers: 83 F. App'x 156

Judges: Murphy, Lay, Fagg

Filed Date: 12/22/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024