United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit


No. 22-1415

                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Appellee,

                              v.

               RAFAEL CARDONA, SR., a/k/a RAFO,

                     Defendant, Appellant.



No. 22-1416

                   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                           Appellee,

                              v.

                         ISAAC CARDONA,

                     Defendant, Appellant.


         APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Timothy S. Hillman, U.S. District Judge]


                            Before

                    Gelpí, Selya, and Lynch,
                        Circuit Judges.


    Leslie Feldman-Rumpler for appellant Rafael Cardona, Sr.
     Jane Elizabeth Lee for appellant Isaac Cardona.
     Donald C. Lockhart, Assistant United States Attorney, with
whom Joshua S. Levy, Acting United States Attorney, was on brief,
for appellee.



                        December 7, 2023
             LYNCH, Circuit Judge.       Rafael Cardona Sr. and Isaac

Cardona were convicted of two conspiracies, one to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 

(a)(1),

846,   and   another   to   distribute    and   possess   with   intent   to

distribute heroin, 

      Isaac Cardona, who is Rafael Cardona Sr.'s

son, was also convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering

with intent to promote the carrying on of unlawful activity, 

(a)(1), (h), on the ground that he had agreed to use

the proceeds of unlawful activity -- conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 

, and

distribution of cocaine, 

 § 841(a)(1) -- to procure and resell

the heroin in that conspiracy.

             Rafael Cardona Sr. contends for the first time on appeal

that one of his two conspiracy convictions must be vacated because

the two convictions are multiplicitous in violation of the Double

Jeopardy Clause. Isaac Cardona argues for the first time on appeal

that the money laundering statute under which he was charged is

unconstitutionally vague, and so his conviction under that statute

should be reversed.     Isaac Cardona also argues that insufficient

evidence was presented at trial to establish beyond a reasonable

doubt that he had the requisite intent for a promotional money

laundering conviction, and that the court's failure to properly

instruct the jury on this element of the offense was plain error.




                                  - 3 -
          We    conclude    that   review    is   not     available    for    the

appellants' belated multiplicity and vagueness arguments because

they are covered by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)

and 12(c)(3), which preclude appellate review of an untimely Rule

12(b)(3) claim, absent a showing of good cause.                     We further

conclude that sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support

Isaac   Cardona's   money    laundering      conviction,      and     that    the

concededly erroneous jury instructions as to his intent did not

affect Cardona's substantial rights.

                                    I.

          The    following     facts     are      drawn     from     testimony,

surveillance    footage,     recorded       communications         between    the

appellants and other co-conspirators, and other evidence.               Because

one of the claims addressed in this opinion is a challenge to the

sufficiency of the evidence, "we recount the facts in the light

most favorable to the verdict."        United States v. Paz-Alvarez, 

, 18 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Rodríguez-

Soler, 

, 290 (1st Cir. 2014)).

          During 2015 and 2016, David Cruz was a drug dealer based

in Westfield, Massachusetts,