In United States v. Malachi Mullings, No. 24-11822 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2026) (Branch, Luck, Schlesinger (MDFL)), the Court affirmed Mullings’s money laundering conspiracy convictions, following his guilty plea to an 8-count indictment, and his 120-month sentence of imprisonment.

In affirming Mullings’s conviction, the Court, applying the factors in United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1988), found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Mullings’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Based in part on the district court’s findings after an evidentiary hearing on Mullings’s motion, the Court found that “Mullings had the close assistance of counsel”; “the district court afforded Mullings substantial time to consider whether to plead guilty,” and conducted a thorough colloquy prior to accepting his plea; over a month passed between Mullings’s guilty plea and his motion to withdraw it—and his bond revocation likely influenced his decision to seek withdrawal; and the Court credited the district court’s credibility conclusion that “there was zero evidence of coercion other than Defendant’s uncredible testimony.” The Court gave no weight to the government’s nondisclosure of the fact that a conspirator was cooperating at the time of Mullings’s guilty plea, because, “the government had no obligation to disclose” “material impeachment evidence” prior to the defendant’s guilty plea—“even though such evidence would likely benefit the defendant in making his decision.”

In affirming Mullings’s sentence, the Court rejected a host of challenges to the district court’s guideline calculations, finding instead that:

  1. The  district court did not err its 3.5 million dollar loss amount calculation, where it relied on a government expert, who testified at sentencing, and “used a detailed methodology that incorporated her 15 years of experience as a fraud auditor and included reviewing every line in the relevant bank statements”; and it correctly incorporated the proceeds laundered by a coconspirator, because the government submitted reliable evidence—including hearsay—that Mullings directed that coconspirator’s money laundering;
  2. The district court correctly applied a 2-level aggravating role enhancement for Mullings’s recruitment and supervision of a single coconspirator, despite other members of the conspiracy having more significant supervisory roles;
  3. Noting that neither party challenged the Court’s reliance on the guideline commentary, and thus it “need not decide whether the text of U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(C) is ambiguous,” the Court relied on the commentary to affirm the district court application of a 4-level enhancement for being  “in the business of laundering funds”;
  4. The district court correctly applied an obstruction of justice enhancement after finding that Mullings committed perjury when he denied his guilt, under oath, at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea;
  5. The district court also, “properly considered that Mullings’s statements made during the hearing for his motion to withdraw his guilty plea indicated a lack of acceptance of responsibility and determined that those statements outweighed any earlier acceptance of responsibility.”

Full opinion: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202411822.pdf