bad key he was charged with a rico you know prize but in this particular case judge he was not charged with any overt acts whatsoever that was the initial involvement in the new kings from each thirteen to the time of his arrest and he clearly provided information in the details to which he could recall about his involvement from the age of thirteen to the time of his arrest what transpired after that was essentially mr parag was identifying clearly how his roles changed over the course of being a young juvenile the thirteen being arrested serving time and then actually being convicted of drug conspiracy as part of that came in two thousand and two to be released from prison and then for a period of about six years providing all of the requirements to get off probation and survive he moved away from the th corner where he was raised with his family tried to raise a family and who while an essentially stayed out of touch completely with the leaden kings as much he factors indicate however that he ran into problems with his girlfriend later on a twenty year levon after being out for six years was kicked out of his house and essentially at the go back home to st where he was at thirteen and from there being much older person the lad and king simply welcomed him back to the neighborhood and blessed him to become a member of that and he was again what he did and he told the police is that i did do that because i had an alcohol and a drug problem and it allows me to simply make money that i otherwise didn't have and essentially act as sort of a senior person in the  he eventually police guilty what is the relevant conduct and that's what we allow here and what we have here is that by admitting essentially his extensive involvement over the period of the years the district court looked at all of that and simply said i believe that based on your admissions you should get the added increase of the sentencing guideline range of attempted murder even though there have been no attempted murder charges an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy or attempted murder charge in this particular case within the evidence was is that he has been a thirteen year old and someone had been in force or at age sixteen or seventeen before went to prison yes he admitted yes i was which which case the fence level atlanta is appropriate and well judge it in part is the conspiracy well whether the concern here judges is that what we have is the rico in particular which talks about relevant conduct and  point out in my brief is that there's essentially two parts that you have to have been termed a relevant kind of respect to the rico and st is to foreseeability and the idea that you can foresee that that this particular it for the basis is something that they're going to be involved in and because of mr perot's unique situation from thirteen to sixteen to now back in th street and the hierarchy that was involved here there were no murders or anything that he's involved in problem the latin king game problem is a national problem and therefore if you look at joining the leaden kings you look at their manifesto you can simply say that anyone at any point in time  shootings of rival gang members as many as five times and that he was expected to participate in murders and other violence and that he that in fact he did participate in up to five shootings that he recalls from age thirteen to when he went to jail before two thousand and two but those are the ever charged with attempted murder there's no indication even with the state elements that that shooting at anything whether it's up in the air it cars or whatever are charges sufficient for an attempted murder and the court clearly pointed that out the district court said we're not we're not considering that what we're basically saying is that the latin king enterprise itself kings nationally by their own manifesto say that murders and shootings and things are part of it that's enough for someone to garcia and and i understand that that essentially what garcia is but but when you look at those cases and every case they simply follow that analysis the district court is left with the clear impression because these are trials this is evidence it comes in they simply say and i think the th circuit says so in the bailey case that they  their brief is that even though we want to avoid the tail wagging the dog to increase this conspiracy issue to enhance the base level within us we have to be careful that essentially the preponderance of the evidence does not simply drag every single circumstance into this heightened level of sentencing guidelines and then this particular case judge every single one of these latin kings or gang related cases where this is a fundamental offense was was raised there were facts introduced by the individual trial of the testimony and the like where there was more than enough evidence to hold them accountable foreseeability for treatments and the like this case is more like the th circuit cases where there were like unlimited pleas where the person expressly says i'm not ready to what i've done in this case but i had absolutely no knowledge about the other issues i have not foresee directly addressed it it just simply affirms that relevant conduct as a basic only has to be proven by andras but in the rico matter and then the rico cases the courts have been very careful to say listen we may think it should be a high standard i think that was the language you greatly and i think that was a language that was also using garcinia where they said we don't have to decide we don't have to really look at the issue of whether we have to change the standard because the evidence that was presented at the trial evidence that was presented by the other co defendants the evidence that the court had to consider whether or not the person should be held considerable for this role of the conduct was simply overwhelming and in those particular cases they didn't review it what i'm saying in this case judge is that this is one of those particular cases given mr paralysis history with the latin kings that the district court had to be more particular with defining essentially what was the knowledge that he had with respect to this heightened yes i think given the standard of of of what garcia points out it clearly could be but but the but the question is is that if you take that one thousand nine hundred and ninety conduct was that evidence of an attempted murder in han as described and clearly if what that is it is it's aggravated conduct it's an assault conduct it's those kinds of things not attempted murder which is what's more specific in terms of mental interims of the m state so what i argue and i think that what we have here is that since one thousand nine hundred and ninety six with respect to how the court has looked at these these and he insists it's not simply to not they simply ask that there be more specific evidence and i think are you today in the other types of cases that that the supreme court has handed down as required to district court to be more particular when you take it enhanced but that is so eighteen u s c nine hundred and sixty one lists state offenses that qualify as rico predicates and guidelines to a one point one of the sentencing guidelines governs the base offense level for any rico defendant that's been convicted or pled that construct the since your question i think is why the court may have held him responsible for the shootings that you reference young age and the answer to that related question is  did not express lee hold him accountable for those shootings and this i think goes to the argument that defense counsel was just making the guideline was for attempted murder was not applied in this case in fact that's the guideline that the defendant has advocated for an appeal that's guidelines to a two point one instead the guidelines for conspiracy to commit murder was what the district court applied and it didn't apply that guideline on the basis of those shootings that you've wrecked you referenced it applied the guideline on the basis of the scope of the agreement that the defendant entered into according to the expressed terms of the plea declaration pursuant to which he entered his guilty plea in that guilty plea just that the defendant expressly admitted that as a latin king he as coconspirators were expected to fight stab shoot at him kill their rivals he admitted in this event is his understanding of the agreement that as a young foot soldier in the gang he himself shot of five people but the agreement itself is shoot was just i don't think it changes the analysis in any way that the defendant had argued below that his participation in the conspiracy didn't begin until he returned and resumed active participation in the gang in two thousand and eleven i believe it was in assume the role of the th street chapter he made that argument and asking the court only to consider what he knew and what he did from that time frame going forward that's kind of rejected that argument and said no you expressly admitted in your plea declaration that you join the gang in one thousand nine hundred and three but even if you set aside those shootings his admissions about what he understood the gang was doing when he joined us into that the chapter kept guns for its members use that those below him that he supervised he expected would use those guns to shoot at rivals who entered their territory that by itself establishes that the scope of his conduct or scope of his agreement rather included and expressly contemplated the murder of rival gang members and that by itself satisfies or or supports the district judge's decision to apply a guideline to a one point five for the conspiracy to commit murder as i said the numerous admissions the defendant made in his plea declaration expressly establish that the defendant agreed agreed that his conspiracy included a conspiracy to commit the murder of his work of his the court this court can thomas talked about that there should be a distinction made when a person is a juvenile and what their lives to have joined at that particular time and again what we have here is a clear demarcation between mr rub becoming a lead king at thirteen and then when he comes back to the eighty nine and what he will join what do you understood his role was at that time the evidence of record i was present at this point did not indicate whatsoever that when he came back today the night after he  served six years that he ever agreed or ever participated in or was ever in any meetings or any knowledge rejoined the army he rejoined he he agreed to participate that's that's correct and even took the the equal role look the question was whether or not recess until next week