United States v. Tolliver: Sixth Circuit Reaffirms Payment for Drugs Constitutes "Promotional Money Laundering."

A grand jury indicted Reshon Tolliver of conspiring to distribute marijuana from California to Memphis and of laundering the proceeds of that operation. At the conclusion of a four-day trial, a jury acquitted Tolliver of the marijuana charge but convicted him of money laundering. He subsequently appealed.

The Court affirmed Tolliver's conviction in a per curiam opinion. Although it appears Tolliver never moved to dismiss the indictment, either orally or in writing, for violating the Speedy Trial Act, he raised that issue on appeal. After finding that certain pretrial motions constituted excludable time under the Act, the Court held that Tolliver moved to dismiss too early since the Speedy Trial clock had not yet expired.

Turning to Tolliver's remaining arguments, the Court held that the Government produced sufficient evidence to convict him of money laundering. First, the Court noted its own precedent holding Tolliver could, in fact, launder payments he received for drugs by buying more drugs. Comparing it to reinvesting a stock dividend, the Court concluded that Tolliver promoted the drug conspiracy by using the proceeds he received to buy additional drugs. After reaching this conclusion, the Court found that the Government had introduced sufficient evidence to convict him of money laundering.

On appeal, Tolliver also challenged the District Court's decision to include some of his gambling winnings. Although it noted Tolliver was a "long-time gambler" the District Court found that the amount he gambled "skyrocketed" once he joined the conspiracy. Noting that Tolliver offered no evidence suggesting a source of income other than from his drug operation, the Court found that the Government produced sufficient evidence connecting his gambling winnings to the laundered money, and that the District Court properly forfeited the same.

In his concurring opinion, Judge Thapar honed in on Tolliver's Speedy Trial Act argument. In his opinion, Tolliver could not appeal any alleged Speedy Trial Act violation because he never actually moved the Court for a dismissal under the Act. In addition to complaining that the Court's opinion ignored the Act's text, Judge Thapar opined about instances in which a defendant might not want to request a dismissal under the Act, noting that, with a dismissal without prejudice, the Government would simply obtain another indictment.