United States v. Goklu

── United States v. Goklu ── Case No.: 24-767 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 07, 2026 Category: General 24-767 United States v. Goklu United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term 2025 Argued: February 9, 2026 Decided: April 7, 2026 No. 24-767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MUSTAFA GOKLU, AKA MUSTANGY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York No. 19-cr-00386 Pamela K. Chen, Judge. Before: PARK and MERRIAM, Circuit Judges, and MATSUMOTO, District Judge. * Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, of the United States District Court for * the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.  A jury convicted Mustafa Goklu of money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business based on a series of bitcoin-for-cash exchanges with an undercover officer. Goklu raises three challenges to his conviction: (1) The district court violated his right to an impartial jury by empaneling a juror who expressed a positive view toward law enforcement and a negative view toward financial crimes; (2) The evidence was insufficient to convict him of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business because a payment of cash for bitcoin is not “money transmitting”; and (3) The district court violated Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by instructing the jury after Goklu’s closing argument that exchanging bitcoin for cash can constitute “transferring funds.” We reject all three challenges. The district court acted within its broad discretion to empanel a juror who said he would try his best to consider the evidence impartially. Moreover, Goklu’s exchanges of bitcoin for cash constituted “money transmitting,” so the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving this legally correct jury instruction. Goklu also challenges his sentence. But he has finished serving his term of imprisonment, and he raises no challenge to his term or conditions of supervised release, so his sentencing challenges are moot. Accordingly, we DISMISS Goklu’s appeal as moot in part and otherwise AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. MATTHEW BRISSENDEN, Matthew W. Brissenden, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Defendant-Appellant. FRANCISCO J. NAVARRO, Assistant United States Attorney (Dylan A. Stern, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for 2 Joseph Nocella, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee. PARK, Circuit Judge: A jury convicted Mustafa Goklu of money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business based on a series of bitcoin-for-cash exchanges with an undercover officer. Goklu raises three challenges to his conviction: (1) The district court violated his right to an impartial jury by empaneling a juror who expressed a positive view toward law enforcement and a negative view toward financial crimes; (2) The evidence was insufficient to convict him of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business because a payment of cash for bitcoin is not “money transmitting”; and (3) The district court violated Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by instructing the jury after Goklu’s closing argument that exchanging bitcoin for cash can constitute “transferring funds.” We reject all three challenges. The district court acted within its broad discretion to empanel a juror who said he would try his best to consider the evidence impartially. Moreover, Goklu’s exchanges of bitcoin for cash constituted