Where the evidence at trial was insufficient was insufficient to prove that the design or purpose of the cash transmittals was to 'conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control' of the drug proceeds, as required for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B), did the Ninth Circuit's split 2-1 decision affirming Petitioner's conviction conflict directly with this Court's decision in Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550, 568 (2008), and the decisions of other circuit courts of appeals?

QUESTION PRESENTED Where the evidence at trial was insufficient was insufficient to prove that the design or purpose of the cash transmittals was to “conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control” of the drug proceeds, as required for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B), did the Ninth Circuit’s split 2-1 decision affirming Petitioner’s conviction conflict directly with this Court’s decision in Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550, 568 (2008), and the decisions of other circuit courts of appeals? i