Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and should reject the prior circuit opinion as having been effectively overruled.” 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). We adopt the Third Circuit’s Smith test, which retains Reves’ operation or management test in its definition of the underlying substantive § 1962(c) violation, but removes any requirement that the defendant have actually conspired to operate or manage the enterprise herself. Under this test, a defendant is guilty of conspiracy to violate § 1962(c) if the evidence showed that she “knowingly agreefd] to facilitate a scheme which includes the operation or management of a RICO enterprise.” Smith, 247 F.3d at 538. Schoenberg’s role in the activities of the Erne enterprise is enough to justify her § 1962(d) conspiracy conviction. See Howard, 208 F.3d at 751 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1346 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges (B) holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy (C) holding that in addition to the general conspiracy principles mentioned in salinas a defendant must also have been aware of the essential nature and scope of the enterprise and intended to participate in it  (D) holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication (E) holding that a conspiracy claim must contain supportive factual allegations describing the general composition of the conspiracy some or all of its broad objectives and the defendants general role in the conspiracy
Output (English): holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication