QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Each Petitioner was convicted of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and each filed and lost a motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Years later, in a fractured plurality opinion, this Court decided United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), holding that the term “proceeds” in § 1956 means the profits, rather than the gross receipts, of illegal activity. Based on this holding, each Petitioner sought to assert his actual innocence of his money laundering conviction. Because they did not meet the narrow requirements for filing a second or successive motion under § 2255(h), each Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district courts and the Tenth Circuit rejected those petitions for lack of jurisdiction.
Brief PDF