Gonzalez-Contreras

MEMORANDUM **

I. Appeal of Defendant Leanne Fern Contreras

1. Venue was proper in Guam. Defendant had several telephone conversations with an undercover officer located in Guam in connection with the money laundering conspiracy. During these conversations, she discussed arrangements for the officer to deposit funds into her bank accounts and furnished the officer with bank account numbers. See 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a); United States v. Meyers, 847 F.2d 1408, 1411 (9th Cir.1988) (“[V]enue is appropriate in any district where an overt act committed in the course of the conspiracy occurred.”) (quoting United States v. Schoor, 597 F.2d 1303, 1308 (9th Cir.1979) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2. Defendant claims there was no “enabling legislation” permitting her case to be transferred from California to Guam, but this is incorrect. See 48 U.S.C. § 1424 (the District Court of Guam has the “jurisdiction of a district court of the United States”); 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (a). Because the District Court of Guam had jurisdiction over the case and venue was proper, defendant could lawfully be tried there without any waiver on her part.

3. The district court properly denied the requests for…