UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 22-6015 │ v. │ │ RUDY GUERRERO, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington. No. 5:21-cr-00136-4—Danny C. Reeves, Chief District Judge.

Decided and Filed: August 7, 2023

Before: GRIFFIN, McKEAGUE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Gal Pissetzky, PISSETZKY LAW, LL, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant. Charles P. Wisdom, Jr., James T. Chapman, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Defendant Rudy Guerrero was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering. He challenges his conviction on several grounds, including variance and venue, as well as his sentence and an evidentiary ruling by the district court. Because the errors he alleges are either not prejudicial or not error at all, we affirm his judgment and sentence. No. 22-6015 United States v. Guerrero Page 2

I.

A. Facts

The facts of this case involve a money laundering scheme, organized by a person unknown to law enforcement (“Defendant One”) who operated as a money broker for drug organizations that wanted to move money from the United States to Mexico. Defendant One orchestrated the receipt of cash in the United States, the conversion of the cash into cryptocurrency, and the conversion of the cryptocurrency back into cash in Mexico.

Agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) managed to infiltrate the operation. An undercover agent (the “coordinating agent”1) would receive from Defendant One a list of cities in which drug proceeds needed to be obtained, would choose cities, and then coordinate with the DEA.2 The DEA would select another undercover agent (the “receiving agent”) to participate in the scheme by receiving illicit funds. The DEA would give the coordinating agent the receiving agent’s phone number and a bill code.3 The coordinating agent would pass that information on to Defendant One, who would pass it on to his client. The receiving agent’s information would end up with the client’s contacts in the chosen city, so that a money drop of the client’s money could be arranged. The receiving agent would then be contacted, and the money drop would be set up and executed, with the receiving agent obtaining illicit funds from a courier. The receiving agent would then deposit the funds in an undercover DEA bank account. The money was then transferred to Defendant One as cryptocurrency, after which it would eventually be sent back to the client as cash.

Defendant Guerrero worked at a car dealership in the Chicago area. He was involved as a courier in three separate money drops with DEA Agent Corona in Chicago in May 2020. Corona’s undercover information was passed by DEA Agent Stout—operating out of L