to this case because there is no legislative history reflecting any legislator’s belief about how the money-laundering statute should apply to lottery operators”) (citing id. at 2032-33). As the plurality recognized, "[sjince his vote is necessary to our judgement, and since his opinion rests upon the narrower ground, the Court’s holding is limited...,” to the holding "... that ‘proceeds’ means ‘profits’ when there is no legislative history to the contrary.” 128 S.Ct. at 2031 (citing Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977)). In view of the above discussion, we believe that Santos overrules this Court’s decision in United States v. Grasso, which was relied upon by the District Court in the instant case. Grasso, 381 F.3d 160, 169 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 13 . In Kann, the defendants cashed
holding that  proceeds as that term is used in the money laundering statute means gross receipts from illegal activity rather than profits recognizing that the term expense may be used to define disbursements even though the term is used in accrual accounting holding a technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to consider whether the arrest was illegal and whether the consent was tainted by the potentially illegal police activity holding that money seized from a bank account must be traceable to illegal activity in order to be subject to forfeiture even if account previously contained proceeds of illegal activity