not consider this issue in conducting its merger analysis. Therefore, we are bound by our precedent. 16 . To establish the sort of concealment money laundering involved in "Wilkes, the government was required to prove that the defendant: [1] knew that money being used in a financial transaction was the “proceeds of some form of unlawful activity,” and [2] then conducted a financial transaction with such proceeds; [3] "to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds.” 18 U.S.C. § 195 6(a)( 1 )(B)(i) (emphasis added). Because ) (applying the presumption that "proceeds” means “gross receipts” unless there is adequate legislative history to rebut the presumption); United States v. Fishman, 645 F.3d 1175, 1193-94 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Demarest, 570 F.3d 1232,
recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue holding in light of the fractured nature of santos that the opinion is confined to its factual setting so that proceeds means profits only where an illegal gambling operation is involved holding that the weight given to a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible holding that the weight given a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements