Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): it may be satisfied by “a closed period of repeated conduct,” or “past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.” Id. Whereas predicate acts that extend over a few weeks or months and threaten no future criminal conduct do not satisfy this requirement, “[a] party alleging a RICO violation may demonstrate continuity over a closed period by proving a series of related predicates extending over a substantial period of time.” Id. In this case, the indictment identifies fourteen predicate acts that occurred between 2000 and October of 2008, several of which allegedly spanned a multi-year period. Consequently, closed-end continuity is sufficiently charged in the indictment. See Lovin, supra, 2007 WL 167454, at *3, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4914, at *8 (<HOLDING>); see also Walk v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 890 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the striking similarity between the acts alleged in the indictment and the prior incidents rendered incidents that occurred fifteen years prior to the acts alleged in the indictment relevant and admissible under rule 404b (B) holding that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement since it alleged that the defendants conduct occurred over a period of eight years (C) holding that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate retaliation for activities that occurred two years prior to the termination (D) holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense (E) recognizing the prejudice of an extension to a defendant who would be required to litigate events that occurred more than eight years earlier
Output (English): holding that the striking similarity between the acts alleged in the indictment and the prior incidents rendered incidents that occurred fifteen years prior to the acts alleged in the indictment relevant and admissible under rule 404b