when the transactions involved sums which fell below the jurisdictional minimum and hence did not make out independent violations of § 666. However, one of the rationales for allowing aggregation under such circumstances is to ensure that poorly motivated officials do not evade liability under § 666 simply by stealing less than $5000 at a time. See Webb, 691 F.Supp. at 1168; Sanderson, 966 F.2d at 189. Worries about opportunistic evasion of liability do not apply to transactions that involve sums larger than the statutory minimum. Since most of the bundled transactions in this case involved sums greater than $5000, it is not clear whether this line of precedent would support the aggregation that occurred in this case. But see United States v. Urlacher, 784 F.Supp. 61, 64 (W.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>). Fortunately, we are not completely without
holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that section 1101a43d requires that the money laundering involve more than 10000 not that 10000 or more was tainted recognizing that in the usual case no information or evidence comes to light more than one year after imposition of sentence holding that the unit of prosecution under  666a1a is  5000 or more from whatever source in any one year period in which the government or agency at issue receives more than 10000 in federal aid holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency