United States v. James Kalfsbeek

MEMORANDUM

James Kalfsbeek appeals his conviction, after a jury tidal, of four counts of money laundering; Donna Rowe appeals her conviction, after a jury trial, of three counts of money laundering and one count of conspiracy. Kalfsbeek and Rowe bring several challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdicts; Kalfsbeek argues that the district court erred under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 during the sentencing hearing; and Kalfsbeek and Rowe appeal the district court’s denial of their Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33 motions based on the sufficiency of evidence.

We review de novo the sufficiency of evidence, first viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and resolving any competing inferences accordingly. We then determine whether the evidence, so viewed, is sufficient to allow “any rational trier of fact [to find] the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (internal citation omitted).

Kalfsbeek argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the relevant funds were derived from criminal activity. The…