sentencing exposure that is possible for mr pres the expanse of the rico statute and the underlying wreckage hearing activity will be the focus of my argument today with any time remaining or if the court would have particular questions i'm happy to address the nd issue the failure to consider mr prez's arguments with regard to sentencing disparities amongst his co defendants but specifically with regard to the rico case the question here is not whether mr  pereira's is accountable for the underlying racketeering activity of attempted homicide the question rather is given the state law upon which that record tearing offense is chargeable and punishable illinois law in this case individually subject to a life maximum sentence we do not disagree that his liability would still be for attempted homicide but the unique aspect of illinois law here is that he personally discharges a firearm an aggravating factor that would allow for the maximum life sentence does not apply to coconspirators or co defendants those individuals who did not in fact personally discharge a firearm  unlike it would appear the government characterizes this is not a question of whether mr pres underlying racketeering activity is attempted homicide and that appears consistent with the law coming out of the navy as well as the government's citation of additional yesterday which was this court's resolution of the issue in chester on which the district court relied in the navy the court indicated that pinkerton liability was appropriate when determining an underlying racketeering activity and in this case essentially there is a two step increase that would develop given that there are aggravating factors under the state law that is mr prez was not directly as a principal actor involved in the attempted homicide he did not personally just charge a firearm in this case but yet his liability would still be for attempted homicide the differences or the nd step is that illinois state law does not allow for the attribution of that aggravating factor to individuals who are not the principal actor in that particular aggravating factor in both chester as well as by name but the difference in those cases was that the aggravating factor allowing for the life maximum sentence applied it to the offen discharge of a firearm was not attributable or is not attributable and therefore that is the reason why mr prez would not and cannot be subject to a life sentence under state law and under the rico provisions that refer to state which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment the racketeering activity here is the underlying attempted murder it doesn't say anything about it has to be on the defendant's actions evolved in the r during activity it's very broad and that's what we've relied on and us versus brown to reach the conclusion how do you get around that so with regard to brown and the neighbor before it the  other courts have considered as well as this court implicitly in nave and brown that state law does define the scope or settled parameters of particular sentences under the rico provisions for example for nand as out of the th circuit which we cite in our brief notes that sentences vary according to the law of the state where the act occurred and implicit with regard to the references to state law and the definition of racketeering activity conqueror excuse me congress's amending of the statute to include life sentence provision this is one of the narrow areas where because state law defines the parameters of the particular life sentence  firearm is life imprisonment are you for the particular individual who just personally just church the firearm no that is not the case but ok so here in the in my question is focused on the and sixty three that deals with the punishment for the rico conspiracy it doesn't say anything about the record hearing activity having to be something that the defendant was personally personally carried out that's correct and that is not inconsistent with the notion that attempted homicide is the appropriate record tiering activity but i believe where where that is the basis in by imprisonment for more than one year so that definition which is then used in nineteen thousand six hundred and thirty eight to define the racketeering activity imports and refers to state law in addition to other federal crimes for the basis for defining the scope of the state law and this to to given a centrally a distinction the government cites to cases that talk about essentially defenses to the crime itself and  that is not the case here there is no defense or there is no claim that mr president was not subjected to the rect hearing activity of attempted homicide itself the question is whether the aggravating factors that would allow for the maximum sentence could apply and under state law the fact that this would not be chargeable under state law as a maximum life sentence possibility for him and so it is a unique circumstance i haven't in my research been able to find other circumstances where aggravating factors particularly attached to individuals rather than the crime itself similar to chester and brown but maybe with be aggravating factors thank you good afternoon and may it please the court in three and a static on behalf of the united states the district court did not air in sentencing the defendant the defendant statutory maximum penalty for the rico conspiracy imprisonment as the district court explained rico sentences do not depend on acts committed by any specific defendant instead they reflect the operation of the enterprise as a whole attempting to murder victim one it's irrelevant that the defendant could not have been sentenced in illinois court to life prison meant nine hundred and sixty three a is not eight personalized and he meant as the defendant asserts in his reply a does not say that every member of a conspiracy must personally commit murder or an app chargeable under state law it instead requires that there be an enterprise that engage in racketeering activities that are charge under state law and that was conceded in this case as part of the theory meant that the ground sorry is part of the stipulated offenses that the defendant engaged in erect hearing enterprise with activities chargeable under state law including the pereira's pledge to and was guilty of a rico conspiracy the agreement of individuals to engage in an enterprise of racketeering activity nor that there's disagreement with regards to there being an underlying racketeering activity of attempted homicide the sentencing parameters and the references to state law the cases that discuss the aggravating factors under state law including the navy and brown is important in defining the outward parameters of a potential life sentence so it is not a question of whether mr price had to be personally involved in an attempted homicide but rather there was a chargeable racketeering activity under state law that would carry a life sentence