The Eleventh Circuit Just Threw Out a Florida Money-Laundering Sentence Enhancement: What United States v. Morilla Means for Federal Defendants

If you are facing a federal money laundering charge in Florida, the difference between a 57-month sentence and a 37-month sentence can come down to two levels on a guideline worksheet. On June 11, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit vacated a Southern District of Florida sentence because the district court tacked on a sophisticated-laundering enhancement that the defendant's own conduct never earned. United States v. Morilla is a clean reminder that the government does not get to borrow the conspiracy's worst facts and pin them on the person who joined last and did the least.

Key Takeaways

• In United States v. Morilla (11th Cir., June 11, 2026), the court vacated a 57-month sentence because the district court applied the sophisticated-laundering enhancement without individualized findings.
• The two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(3) requires complex or intricate conduct by the defendant — shell companies, offshore accounts, or layered transactions — not just a sophisticated conspiracy.
• Under U.S.S.G. 1B1.3, a defendant cannot be sentenced for conduct that occurred before he joined the conspiracy, and the court must measure his relevant conduct individually.
• A defendant who pleads to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) still controls his own sentencing exposure through preserved guideline objections.
• This is a Southern District of Florida case, and SDFL remains one of the most active federal money laundering and drug-proceeds enforcement districts in the country.

The difference between a 37-month range and a 57-month range was two levels on a guideline worksheet. The Eleventh Circuit held the district court never tied the sophisticated-laundering enhancement to what this defendant actually did.

What Actually Happened in Morilla

The defendant pleaded guilty in the Southern District of Florida to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 1956(h). The substantive counts were dismissed in the plea. The stipulated facts were narrow. He joined a laundering conspiracy in March 2023, roughly a year after it had already formed. Over about one month he moved drug proceeds through three wire transfers using his own bank account, taking a six-percent fee. He was held responsible for laundering about $550,000 of the roughly $1.365 million involved in the whole scheme.

At sentencing the district court adopted the presentence report and applied a two-level enhancement for sophisticated laundering under U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(3). That pushed the advisory range to 57 to 71 months, and the court imposed 57 months. Without the enhancement, and with the minor-role reduction he asked for, his range would have been 37 to 46 months. The two levels were not academic. They were the difference between roughly three years and roughly five years.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated the sentence, and sent the case back for resentencing.

Why the Sophisticated-Laundering Enhancement Did Not Stick

The guideline commentary defines sophisticated laundering as complex or intricate conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of the offense. It points to the use of fictitious entities or shell corporations, two or more levels of layered transactions designed to make criminal proceeds look legitimate, or offshore financial accounts. The enhancement targets laundering that is materially more elaborate than a routine transfer.

Morilla's conduct was none of that. He moved money one step, from his own account to an undercover agent's account. No shell companies. No offshore accounts. No fictitious entities. Even the government conceded at sentencing that his conduct did not qualify and that the enhancement should not apply. The district court applied it anyway, reasoning that if the conspiracy as a whole was sophisticated, it did not have to differentiate between individual defendants.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected that shortcut. A sentencing judge must make individualized findings. Under U.S.S.G. 1B1.3, a defendant's accountability for the acts of others is limited by the scope of what he agreed to jointly undertake, and relevant conduct does not include conduct that happened before he joined the conspiracy. Because the court leaned on evidence from a co-defendant's trial rather than on what this defendant actually did, the guideline calculation was wrong.

Exposure and the Statutes That Drive It

Federal money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 1956 carries serious exposure — up to 20 years on the substantive offense — and the conspiracy provision in section 1956(h) reaches the same range. But in most cases the statutory maximum is not what decides the outcome. The sentencing guidelines do. The amount of money attributed to the defendant, role adjustments, and enhancements like sophisticated laundering are where federal money laundering cases are actually won and lost.

That is why preserved guideline objections matter so much. A two-level swing on the sophisticated-laundering enhancement, combined with a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2, was worth about twenty months of real time in Morilla. For anyone weighing a plea or preparing for sentencing, the fight over relevant conduct and enhancements is the case.

The Mistakes That Cost Defendants at Sentencing

Treating the presentence report as fixed. The PSR is a recommendation. Every enhancement in it is contestable, and the burden is on the government to prove the facts that support an enhancement.

Letting the conspiracy's worst facts define your client. Morilla shows that the government cannot attribute the whole scheme's sophistication to the person who joined last and moved money one step.

Failing to force individualized findings. If the court does not tie an enhancement to your client's own conduct under U.S.S.G. 1B1.3, that can be reversible error — but only if the objection is preserved on the record.

Waiting until sentencing to engage counsel. By the time the PSR is written, much of the relevant-conduct narrative is already set. Pre-indictment and early defense work shape what facts ever reach the probation officer.

The Defense Approach This Case Rewards

The defendant in Morilla did the right things at the guideline stage. He objected in writing to the enhancement and to the denial of the minor-role reduction. He made a clear record that his laundering was one-step, through an account he owned, with no layering. He preserved the issue for appeal. That record is what gave the Eleventh Circuit something to reverse on.

A federal criminal defense attorney handling a money laundering or drug-proceeds case should be building that record from the first contact with the government. That means careful federal investigation defense, a measured response to any federal grand jury subpoena, controlling what the client says before any proffer, and shaping the relevant-conduct picture during the pre-indictment phase. Early work is where the eventual guideline range is really decided.

Morilla carries a second lesson about timing. The district court tried to insulate its guideline error by announcing an alternative sentence under United States v. Keene, saying it would impose 57 months regardless of the guidelines. The Eleventh Circuit held that statement was ineffective because the judge made it before hearing argument on the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and before the defendant could allocute. A premature alternative-sentence statement cannot paper over a guideline mistake.

Why the Timing Matters Right Now

The Southern District of Florida remains one of the most aggressive federal districts in the country for money laundering tied to drug proceeds and cash-intensive schemes. Undercover money laundering stings — like the one in Morilla — are a standard tool, and the people charged are often couriers and fee-takers who joined late, not the organizers.

For those defendants, Morilla is leverage. It says the government has to prove sophistication as to you, not as to the scheme. If you are under investigation or already charged in an SDFL money laundering case, the window to shape relevant conduct is open now and closes at sentencing. Getting in front of the probation officer with the right facts is far more valuable than arguing about them after the PSR is written.

Common Questions

I am under federal investigation in South Florida for money laundering. When should I get a lawyer?

Immediately, and ideally before any charge or proffer. The relevant-conduct narrative that drives your eventual guideline range is shaped during the investigation and in the presentence report. A federal criminal defense attorney involved early can influence what facts the government and the probation officer ever rely on.

Facing a Federal Money Laundering Charge in Florida?

Facing a federal money laundering or drug-proceeds investigation in Florida? The outcome often turns on guideline objections and relevant-conduct findings, and those fights start long before sentencing. AMC Defense Law represents individuals and businesses in federal investigations and prosecutions in the Southern District of Florida and nationwide. Contact us for a confidential consultation.