United States v. George H. Flattum

21 F.3d 1116 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George H. FLATTUM, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-30126. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 9, 1994. Decided March 21, 1994. Before: BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 I. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MONEY LAUNDERING STATUTE 3 Flattum received fair notice that his conduct was prohibited under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956 (a)(2). This court's decision in U.S. v. Monroe, 943 F.2d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.1991) makes clear that the word "transport" includes any "transfer" or "transmission" of funds. McSherry v. Block, 880 F.2d 1049, 1052 (9th Cir.1989) (authoritative judicial construction of otherwise ambiguous statutory term "expressly and unequivocally removed" any ambiguity). Further, in rejecting an ex post facto challenge to its construction of the statute, Monroe necessarily held the construction was foreseeable.…