4th Cir.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BISHEEM JONES

July 21, 2026 ·23-4711 ·Panel Decision ·BERNER · By James Taylor

The Fourth Circuit vacated a conviction for conspiracy to commit promotional money laundering due to insufficient evidence of an agreement to funnel proceeds back into the gun trafficking scheme. The court affirmed the defendant's other convictions and the district court's application of several sentencing enhancements.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:28

Background

Bisheem Jones led a straw-purchasing scheme involving over one hundred and thirty firearms across West Virginia and Pennsylvania. He recruited participants, compensated straw purchasers with money or drugs, and resold the firearms for profit. Jones was convicted of conspiracy to travel interstate with the intent to deal in firearms without a license, conspiracy to commit promotional money laundering, and aiding and abetting interstate travel with the intent to deal in firearms without a license. He was acquitted of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones and a co-conspirator agreed to use proceeds from the gun trafficking to promote further gun trafficking. The evidence showed payments to straw purchasers were part of the mechanics of the underlying offense rather than a separate agreement to reinvest profits. Text messages regarding personal expenses and electronic transfers to straw purchasers did not demonstrate an agreement to funnel proceeds back into the scheme. The court distinguished this from cases where payments are made to encourage continued participation in an ongoing enterprise.

The Government’s evidence, at most, proved the existence of a gun-trafficking business and Jones’s role in running that unlawful business with other participants.

Opinion at 6

The dissent

What it means going forward

The defendant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit promotional money laundering is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts. The district court may consider non-retroactive changes to the Sentencing Guidelines regarding obliterated serial numbers upon resentencing.