Whether the district court erred in denying Bolze's 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion for relief from counsel's ineffective assistance in advising him to plead guilty to money laundering charges under 18 U.S.C. §1957 despite the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Santos that the term 'proceeds' in the money laundering statute refers only to 'profits' and not 'gross receipts'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW c On June 2, 2008, the Supreme Court changed the law in United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 509 (2008). On May 20, 2009, Congress amended the Federal money-laundering statute to define the ' proceeds as being gross receipts effectively overriding Santos. (see; 18 U.S.C. §1956(c)(9)). Almost immediately, after the Santos decision The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the Same court that Bolze was convicted in months later) issued a Memorandum and Order in United States v. Thompson. The Court recognized the law changed under Santos. The Court believed that since the Sixth Circuit, at that time, had not spoken on Santos, the proper course of action was for.the government to bare its burden at trial. ( Thompson went to trial and was found innocence of violating the money laundering statute under Santos. (See Attached Exhibit A, Doc. 95 PageID 202. Across the heartland, other defendants also sought relief under Santos. Defendants in the Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit were successful?!” Their success created a framework of . favorable cases for other defendants to consider in reaching informed strategic choices, including Bolze. Bolze was arrested arrested and at arraignment, counsel was appointed to represent Bolze. Counsel immediately advised Bolze FOOTNOTE I: United States v. Shelburne, 563 F. Supp. 2d 601, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86387 (W.D. Va., July 1, 2008); United States v. Herlund, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98371 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2008); United States v. Achobe, 560 F. 3d 274 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2008); United States v. Lee, 558 F. 3d 638, 650 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2009); United States v. Smith, 622 F. Supp. 2d 693; 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS (_. 35222 (W.D. Va., Apr. 27, 2009). ~ii to draft a plea. Bolze, a layman, was a Federal detainee at the ‘eo Blount County Detention Center and was not permitted to visit or allowed to conduct any legal research. (See; Bolze v. U.S., 3:12cv-473 (E.D. Tenn 2012) Doc. 110-2, Affidavits). Bolze was indict on July 21, 2009 for operating a Ponzi scheme from "April 2002 through in or about December 2008," (see U.S. v. Bolze, 3:09-cr-0093 (E.D. Tenn 2009) Doc. 23, Indict; Doc. ' 43, Plea; and PSR). ; Bolze had drafted a hand-written plea, pleading guilty to One-Count of money laundering (based on the Complaint) without any counsel's input or legal advice. Counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness by failing to investigate : Santos or even attempt any adversarial testing of the government's charges, before simply submitting the unknowing plea to the GovernC ment. When counsel submitted the initial plea, he began the “criti-~ cal stage" of plea negotiations.’ After further negotiations, the Government on August 27, 2009, offerred its version to counsel. The government's version also contained One-Count of Money~Laundering. On September 2, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in United States v. Kratt, 579 F. 3d 558, 566 (6th Cir. 2009). Bolze would ultimately be convicted of all three Counts of money laundering pursuant to an unknonwing plea. Bolze sentencing guidelines was enhanced under U.S.S.C. §2S1.1(b)(1)(A) based on the conviction under §1957. (See PSR). The District Court sentenced Bolze to the high-end of the oe -iii resulting Guidelines range to 240 months imprisonment for the wire C fraud charges and 87 months months (consecutive) for the conviction of the money laundering charges. Bolze filed a timely 28 U.S.C.§2255 seeking relief from counsel's egrogeously deficent conduct. Bolze claimed that he was factually innocence of committing a violation of $1957 under Santos in his petition. . ; Although the Court recognized this claim, the Court then determined that three Sixth Circuit decision rendered after counsel's challenged deficient acts or omissions foreclosed any relief under Santos. (Doc. 145, Denial, PageID 2956). ; The Court did not provide any anlysis of Strick