SCOTUS Cuellar case continues Term of statutory interpretation and sentencing

For legal process and statutory interpretation geeks like me, the criminal cases on the SCOTUS docket this Term are so intriguing.  As I have noted before, the Court has taken up a number of ACCA sentencing statutory interpretation cases this Term, and a number of other major sentencing cases —  such as Gall and Kimbrough and even capital cases like Baze and Medellin and Kennedy — can be viewed as matters concerning the impact of statutes and the legislative process.

The focus on statutory interpretation today is clear in Cuellar v. U.S. (06-1456), which concerns an issue effectively summarized this way at SCOTUSwiki:

[H]ere is the question raised: “Whether merely hiding funds with no design to create the appearance of legitimate wealth is sufficient to support a money laundering conviction?”  Relying on dictionary definitions and legal argument, the petition contends that “as a matter of plain English, to ‘launder’ money ‘is to disguise illegally-obtained money by making it appear legitimate’ ” — in other words, to make “dirty money” look “clean.”

Though seemingly about the definition of a federal offense, this passage from the short amicus brief from the NACDL spotlights the sentencing aspects of this case:

The expansive and unwarranted interpretation adopted by the Fifth Circuit below ... improperly expands the scope of an already broad statute far beyond its intended reach.  Section 1956 has become a vehicle for increasing potential sentences substantially in excess of what otherwise would be permissible for the underlying conduct, without any showing of the aggravated societal harm that the money laundering statute was designed to redress.  If this over-expansive interpretation is allowed to stand, criminal defendants unjustly will face longer sentences and will be forced to weigh the potential for such sentences in considering whether to plead guilty.

As I love to say, everything always comes back to sentencing issues.

UPDATE: The transcript of today's argument is now available here.