Who says crime doesn't pay?

The Eleventh Circuit today addressed an interesting guideline interpretation issue in US v. Paley, No. 05-13422 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2006) (available here).  The case considers whether the "the total amount of the laundered funds for which Paley was accountable under USSG § 2S1.1" should include "the appreciation in value of an asset purchased with drug proceeds."  The title of this post perhaps gives away the Eleventh Circuit's answer.  Paley is also interesting because it closes with this sentiment:

We note in closing that this is a good example of a case in which the district court could have avoided the necessity of appellate review and a remand for resentencing on this issue by explicitly stating — if true — that even if the court were wrong on the disputed guidelines issue, it would have imposed the same sentence under the guidelines (since the sentence was within both possible ranges) or by using the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.