United States v. Luis Murillo Morfin ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 26 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50076
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:18-cr-00206-JFW-5
v.
LUIS FRANCISCO MURILLO MORFIN, MEMORANDUM*
AKA Luis I. Murillo Morfin,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and CHOE-GROVES,***
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States
Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
Luis Francisco Murillo Morfin appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 1957. We
affirm.
The only disputed fact at trial was whether Murillo had known that the
money he had withdrawn from a bank account and given to his stepfather was
“criminally derived property.” 18 U.S.C. § 1957. After a bench trial, the district
court found that he had.
“There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, ‘viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’”
United States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original)). Sufficient evidence
supported Murillo’s conviction. Among other things, he admitted several times to
law enforcement that he thought the money was derived from illegal activity; he
told a false story to the bank teller about why he needed the money when he
withdrew the funds; he testified that he had been instructed to open the account at
this specific bank because it would “ask the least questions;” and he testified that
he thought his stepfather’s family was involved in human trafficking. The court’s
2
finding that Murillo knew that the money was proceeds of a criminal offense was
supported by ample evidence.
Because we sustain the district court’s finding of actual knowledge, we need
not reach Murillo’s remaining arguments as to deliberate ignorance, venue, and
insufficient evidence of conspiracy.
AFFIRMED.
3