Jimmy Beaumont and three other defendants were convicted of "structuring"1 a financial transaction with intent to evade the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a)--a violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(3). Beaumont appeals this conviction for structuring and, finding that the district court committed neither plain error in its jury instruction on structuring nor reversible error in refusing to sever Beaumont's case from that of his co-defendants, we affirm.

* A

On March 26, 1990, Beaumont and Hersman entered the Orange Bank in Orange, Texas to purchase cashier's checks. Beaumont purchased a cashier's check in the amount of $9,500, and Hersman purchased one in the amount of $9,000. Both Beaumont and Hersman made their purchases in cash and used bills of small denominations, wrapped in rubber bands and contained in a plastic "ziplock" sandwich bag. When Hersman found that he was approximately $500 short of funds to purchase this $9,000 cashier's check, Beaumont paid the difference for him.

The following day, Beaumont returned to the Orange Bank to purchase more cashier's checks, this time accompanied by Gerald Bishop and Jerald Peacock. These March 27 transactions all took place at the same teller window used to make the March 26 cashier's check purchases and were again made with currency consisting of small denominations wrapped with rubber bands and in plastic ziplock sandwich bags. Beaumont purchased a cashier's check in the amount of $6,500; Bishop and Peacock both purchased checks in the amount of $9,000.2 All of these cashier's checks were made payable to the Sabine Title Company.

In April 1990, a federal search warrant was executed on Beaumont's home. Among other physical and documentary evidence, officers found a safe containing approximately $14,300 in currency consisting of small denominations in $1,000 bundles, wrapped with rubber bands and stored inside plastic ziplock sandwich bags. Beaumont's safe also contained the carbon copy portion of the five cashier's checks purchased by him, Hersman, Bishop, and Peacock.

Beaumont, Hersman, Bishop, and Peacock were indicted for structuring financial transactions for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(3).3 After his arrest, Hersman made oral inculpatory statements to state and federal officers--that is, recanting a statement he originally gave to a special agent for the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.),4 Hersman told law enforcement agents that Beaumont had given him the cash necessary for the purchase of his cashier's check and that there was no agreement to invest in the purchase of real property in Newton County.

At trial, Hersman's post-arrest oral statements were modified to remove references to Beaumont. Moreover, prior to admitting any testimony concerning Hersman's statements, the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether a Bruton-type5 violation was likely. Beaumont moved for a severance, arguing that, because of facts and circumstances already presented to the jury, the modified--all references to Beaumont were removed--Hersman statements had the effect of telling the jury that either Beaumont or his co-defendants gave the money to Hersman. The district court denied Beaumont's request for a severance and declined to exclude the modified Hersman post-arrest statements. Hersman's statements were introduced at trial through the testimony of two prosecution witnesses, Commander Wayne Hoffman and Texas Public Safety Investigator Howard Jake Smith, and all defendants were convicted of the structuring charge. Beaumont was sentenced to a prison term of twenty-four months, to be served concurrently with a life sentence for his conviction on related drug charges.6

A. Whether the district court erred in its instruction on structuring; and

B. Whether the district court erred in refusing Beaumont's motion for severance.

* Beaumont contends that the district court erred in the jury instruction it gave on structuring pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313(a), 5324(3). We disagree.

Title 31, Section 5324(3) of the United States Code states in part that no person shall for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Section 5313(a), structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.

* * * * * *

It is not necessary for the Government to prove that a defendant knew that structuring or assisting in structuring a transaction to avoid triggering the filing requirements was itself illegal. The Government need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant structured or assisted in structuring currency transactions with knowledge of the reporting requirements and with the specific intent to avoid said reporting requirements. In other words, a defendant's ignorance of the law prohibiting structuring is no defense if he knew about filing requirements and intentionally acted to evade or assisted in evading them.7

Relying upon Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, ----, 111 S. Ct. 604, 609-10, 112 L. Ed. 2d 617 (1991), Beaumont argues that the government was required to prove that (1) he knew that structuring was against the law and (2) specifically intended to violate the law against structuring.8

Beaumont did not object to this structuring instruction at trial, and "we have held in the past that where no timely objection is made to a jury instruction, the claimed error cannot be reviewed on appeal unless giving the instruction was 'plain error' so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice." Branch-Hines v. Hebert, 939 F.2d 1311, 1319 (5th Cir.1991) (citations omitted) (where district court erroneously instructed jury, reversing and remanding for new trial on issue of general damages); see United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 645 (5th Cir.) ("[O]bjections to jury instructions not timely made are waived unless the instruction constitutes 'plain error.' "), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1008, 102 S. Ct. 2300, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1303 (1982). Plain error, in the context of jury instructions, is found only if "the charge, considered as a whole, is so clearly erroneous as to result in a likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice ... or seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Thevis, 665 F.2d at 645 (citation and internal quotations omitted).

Section 5324 provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o person shall for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313(a) with respect to such transaction ... (3) structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions." 31 U.S.C. § 5324.9 This Court has held that "the intent requirements of section 5324 are met if the defendant (1) knew of the bank's legal obligation to report transactions in excess of $10,000; and (2) acted with the purpose of defeating that law, rather than with some innocent purpose." United States v. Peacock, No. 91-4346, 954 F.2d 722 (5th Cir., Feb. 6, 1992) (unpublished slip op. at 6), citing United States v. Camarena, No. 88-1314, 1988 WL 216293, at (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 1988) ("It follows from this account of the legislative history that the government is correct in its contention that the required specific intent is proved by evidence that [the defendant] knew of the bank's legal obligation to report transactions in excess of $10,000 and acted with the bad purpose of defeating that law rather than for some innocent purpose."). We find that this intent requirement of section 5324(3) is clearly captured within the district court's instruction.

As for Beaumont's contention that Cheek, 498 U.S. at ----, 111 S. Ct. at 609-10, requires that the government prove that he (1) knew structuring was against the law and (2) acted with specific intent to violate that law, other circuits have addressed this issue and have declined to extend Cheek to section 5324. See United States v. Rogers, 962 F.2d 342, 344 (4th Cir.1992) (following the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits). Specifically, the Rogers court reasoned:

In Cheek, the rationale for the Court's exception to the traditional interpretation of "willful" was the complexity of the tax code, which often makes it difficult for the average citizen to know what the law requires. Cheek [498 U.S. at ----] 111 S. Ct. at 609-10. That sort of complexity simply is not present in cases involving the "straightforward currency reporting requirements." U.S. v. Dashney, 937 F.2d 532 at 540 (10th Cir.1991). Like the court in Dashney, we believe that the circumstances justifying an adoption of the Cheek definition of "willfulness" are limited, and this case does not present them.

Id. at 344. We agree with this reasoning and, therefore, we find that the district court did not commit plain error in instructing the jury to find Beaumont guilty if he (1) knew of the reporting laws and (2) willfully attempted to evade them.

Beaumont also contends that the district court committed reversible error by admitting Hersman's statements without severing Beaumont from the case.10 We disagree.

In Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 127, 88 S. Ct. 1620, 1623, 20 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1968), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1014, 90 S. Ct. 1248, 25 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1970), the Supreme Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is violated when (1) several co-defendants are tried jointly, (2) one defendant's extrajudicial statement is used to implicate another defendant in the crime, and (3) the confessor does not take the stand and is thus not subject to cross-examination. Severance of the trials is proper, but only in cases where a defendant's statement directly incriminates his or her co-defendants without reference to other, admissible evidence. See United States v. Espinoza-Seanez, 862 F.2d 526, 534 (5th Cir.1988). "This Court has held consistently that the Bruton rule is not violated unless a co-defendant's statement directly alludes to the complaining defendant.... This is true, even if the evidence makes it apparent that the defendant was implicated by some indirect references." Id., quoting United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1048, 1054 n. 6 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1073, 105 S. Ct. 565, 83 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1984). We review Bruton issues under the abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980, 1004 (5th Cir.1987).

Hersman's statements elicited through the testimony of Hoffman and Smith--that is, statements that Hersman got the money from "a friend" and that Hersman was just doing a favor for "a friend"--do not directly implicate Beaumont and, therefore, do not violate Bruton. See Espinoza-Seanez, 862 F.2d at 534 (where defendants' confessions were used to implicate co-defendants but those confessing did not take the stand, defendants were not denied Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses because confessions did not directly implicate them without reference to other, admissible evidence). As for Zuniga's testimony that Hersman told him that he thought Beaumont was trying to get around the reporting requirements of section 5313(a), Beaumont did not object to this testimony at trial. Our review of such testimony is only for plain error--that is, we look to see whether it "undermine[d] the fairness of the trial and contribute[d] to a miscarriage of justice." United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15-16, 20, 105 S. Ct. 1038, 1046-47, 1048, 84 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985); see also Basey, 816 F.2d at 1005 (the error may be harmless if the statement's impact is insignificant compared with other evidence against the defendant); United States v. Lewis, 786 F.2d 1278, 1286 (5th Cir.1986). We find that, because Beaumont was overwhelmingly implicated by other evidence,11 the extraction of Hersman's statements from Zuniga's testimony neither undermined the fairness of Beaumont's trial nor contributed to any miscarriage of justice. We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not commit reversible error by refusing to sever Beaumont from the case.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.