FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 14 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11534 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 10 -C V -D H B -3 R I C H A R D E . T U C K E R , P l ai nt i ff -C ou nt er D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M O R R I S S T A T E B A N K , D O N A L D C . C R A F T O N , V i ce C h ai rm an / D i rect o r, M o rri s S ta te B a n k , e t a l., D ef endant s- C ou nt er C la im a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 14, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Construing his brief liberally, Tucker argues for the first time on appe al the B ank’s 1 a c tio ns c on stitute d th eRI CO pre dic atea c ts o f extor tio n under t

hefe deral H obbs Ac ts, mail fra ud , a nd wirefra ud . In th edis tric t c ourt , Tuc ker did not c onte st thec on str uc tio n o f his complaint as only

raisingthe RI CO predicate ac ts of extorti on and bribery under statelaw. Thus , Tuc ker w aive d a

ny argumentsre g ardingfe deral RI CO pre dic atea c ts b y failingto raise them in the district court and w e will not consider them on a ppeal. See Stavropoulos v. Firestone , 361 F.3d 610, 616 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct . 1850 (2005). Tucker also contends the Ba nk was re quired to deposeall of its named potential witnesses and demonstrate the inade quacy of their testimony

in order to satisfy

its summ ary judgment burden. This argument has no merit. 2 R ich ar d T u ck erap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s g ra n t o f M o rr is S tate B an k ’s m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nton hi s c om pl a i nta l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of the Ra c k e t e e rI n f

l u e n c e d a n d Co rru p tO r g a n i z a t i o n s A c t( RI CO ) , 1 8 U . S. C. §§ 1961–68. T uc ke rc ont e nds the B a nk c om m i tt e d e xt or t i on, a s w e l l a s m a i l a nd w ir e f r a u d , b y f

o r c in g h im to p a y o n an o te w h ic h h a d a lr e a d y b e e n s a tis f ie d in o r d e rto b e r e le a s e d f

r o m ja il. T uc ke ra l s o a s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d the s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta n d a r d in c o rr e c tly . W e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. 1 I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e v ie w “a g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t de no vo , usi ng the sa m e l egal st andard as the di stri ctcourt . ” Me r r i t t v . D i l lar d P ape rC o. , 120 F . 3d 1181, 1184 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . S um m a ry j udgm e nti s pr ope ri f the pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a nd a f f id a v its s h o w th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a n d th e m o v in g p a r ty is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w . C e lo tex C o r

p . v . C a tr e tt , 106 S . C t . 2548, 25 52 (198 6) (quo t i ng F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c )) . T he evi dence, and al l i nfer ence s3

dr a w n f r om the f a c t s , m us tbe vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the nonm o v in g p a r ty . M

at s us hi ta E le c . I

ndus . C o. , L td. v . Ze ni th R adi o C or p. , 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 3 4 8 , 1 3 5 6 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . A . R IC O P r e d ic a te A c ts R I C O pr ovi de s apr i va t e c i vi l r e m e dy t o r e c ove rtr e bl e da m a ge s t o “ [ a ] ny pe r s on i nj ur e d i n hi s bus i ne s s orpr ope r ty by r e a s on of avi ol a t i on of

” the subst ant i ve prov i si on s c on t ai ned i n § 19 62 . 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 4(c) . R IC O m akes c r im in a lly liab le th o s e w h o e n g a g e in , o ra id a n d ab e t a n o th e rto e n g a g e in , a pa tt e rn of

r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty i f

the y a l s o: ( 1) us e ori nve s ti nc om e de r i ve d f r om th e p a tte rn o f

r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ity in th e o p e r a tio n o f a n e n te rp r is e e n g a g e d in i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ; ( 2) a c qui r e orm a i nt a i n, thr ough the pa tt e rn of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty , a ny i nt e r e s ti n orc ontr ol ove rs uc h a n e nt e rpr i s e ; or( 3) c onduc tor pa r t i c i pa t e i n the c onduc tof the a f f a i r s of s uc h a n e nt e rpr i s e thr ough apa tt e rn of ra cket ee ri ng ac t i vi ty. 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 2. A conspi ra cyt o v i ol at e a ny of the abov er e f e r e n c e d p r o v is io n s is a ls o u n la w f u l. 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 2 ( d ) . “T h e f o u re le m e n ts of ci vi l R IC O l i abi l i ty a re (1) c on du ct(2) of a n ent erpri se (3) throu gh a patt ern (4) of r ac ket ee ri ng ac t i vi ty. ” L an gf ord v. R i te A i d o

f A la. , Inc. , 231 F . 3d 1308, 1 3 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .4

A pl a i nt i f

f i n ac i vi l R I C O a c t i on m us ti de nt i f y a nd pr ove apa tt e rn of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty , de f i ne d a s a tl e a s ttw o ‘ pr e di c a t e a c t s ’ of r a c ke t e e r i ng ac t i vi ty, the l as tof w hi ch occurre d w i thi n the l as tt en ye ar s. 18 U . S . C . § 1 96 1(5); see a l so Sedi m a, S. P . R . L . v. Im rex C o. , Inc. , 105 S . C t . 3275, 3285 n. 14 ( 1985) (not i ng a patt ern o f r ac ket ee ri ng ac t i vi ty r equi re s a tl ea sttw o d i st i nctbu tre l at ed pr e di c a t e a c t s ) . A r a c ke t e e r i ng a c t i vi ty i s de f i ne d a s “ a ny a c torthr e a ti nvol vi ng m u r d e r , k id n ap p in g , g a m b lin g , a r s o n , r o b b e ry , b r ib e ry , e x to r tio n , d e a lin g in o b s c e n e m a tte r , o rd e a lin g in ac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o rlis te d c h e m ic a l . . . w h ic h is c ha r ge abl e unde rS t a t e l a w a nd puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm e ntf orm or e tha n one y e a r .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) . T ucker’ s e ff

ort s t o d em on stra t e the predi ca t e R IC O ac tof bri beryw er e i nsuffi ci entas a m att erof l aw . T he cr i m e of bri beryun der G eorgi a l aw re qu i re s s om e thi ng be gi ve n orof f e r e d t o “ a ny pe r s on a c t i ng f ororon be ha l f

of the s t a t e or a ny pol i t i c a l s ubdi vi s i on the r e of , orof a ny a ge nc y of

e i the r. . . w i th the purpos e of in f lu e n c in g h im o rh e rin th e p e r f o rm a n c e o f

a n y a c t r e la te d to th e f

u n c tio n s o f

h is orhe rof f i c e ore m pl oy m e nt . ” O . C . G . A . § 16- 10- 2( a ) ( 1) . T uc ke rdoe s nota l l e ge the B ank b ri bed any pu bl i c off i ci al or anyone w orki ng for apu bl i c off i ci al . T ucker on l y a l l eges the B ank b ri bed h i s e x-w i fe t o fi l e di vo rc e a gai nsthi m and t o w ri t e a chec k from hi s a cc ou nt . T here i s no al l egat i on or evi dence i n the re cord, ho w ever ,5

su g g est i n g T u ck er’ s ex -w i fe w as a st at e o ffi ci al o r rep resen t at i v e. A cco rd i n g l y, T u c k e r ’s R I C O c la im p r e d ic a te d o n th e c r im e o f b r ib e ry f

a ils . T ucker’ s a tt em ptt o sho w the predi ca t e R IC O ac tof ext ort i on un der s t at e l aw a ls o f a ils a s am a tte ro f

la w . I n o r d e rto s ta te ac la im o f e x to r tio n u n d e rG e o r g ia la w , T u c k e rm u s t s h o w th e B a n k “u n la w f u lly o b ta in e d p r o p e r ty ” f r o m h im . O . C . G . A . § 16- 8- 16( a ) . T uc ke r ’ s c om pl a i nts t a t e s the B a nk f or e c l os e d upon a f our - w he e l e r , atr a i l e r , a nd api e c e of l a nd. T uc ke ra dm i tt e d a thi s de pos i t i on, h o w e v e r , th a t h e d id n o t p a y o f f th e lo a n s ta k e n o u t f

o rth o s e p ie c e s o f

p r o p e r ty . W hi l e T ucker’ s s t at em ent s r egar di ng hi s truck are ar gu abl y s uffi ci entt o cre at e a di s put e d i s s ue of

f a c t , thi s f a c ti s notm a t e r i a l t o hi s e xt or t i on c l a i m be c a us e the tru c k w a s n e v e rf

o r e c lo s e d u p o n o rr e p o s s e s s e d b y th e B a n k . T h e r e f o r e , it c o u ld n o t h av e b ee n “u n law fu ll y o b tain ed p ro p er ty.” T h e o th erre fe re n ce s in T u ck er ’s com pl ai ntt o ext ort i on ar e c on cl usory a l l egat i on s thatthe B ank com m i tt ed e x to r tio n a n d v io la te d R I C O , a n d h a v e n o p r o b a tiv e v a lu e in s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. U ni te d State s v . T

r ai nor , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 4 n . 5 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). T h u s, T u ck er’ s R IC O cl ai m p red i cat ed o n th e cri m e o f ex t o rt i o n al so fai l s. B . Su m m a ry Ju d

g m en t S ta n da rd T u c k e rb o r e th e b u r d e n a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o f p o in tin g to s p e c if

ic e v id e n c e n e g a tin g th e B a n k ’s s h o w in g th e r e c o r d la c k e d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to6

e s tab lis h p r e d ic a te a c ts u n d e rR I C O . F itz p a tr ic k v . C ity o f A tla n ta , 2 F . 3d 1112, 1116–17 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . T uc ke r ’ s r e s pons e t o the B a nk’ s s um m a ry j udgm e nt m o tio n , h o w e v e r , w a s n e a r ly e n tir e ly d e v o id o f c ita tio n s to s p e c if

ic e v id e n c e . I ns t e a d, T uc ke rm a de va gue c l a i m s i n hi s r e s pons e tha t“ D e f e nda nt s ’ a f

f i da vi t s a nd e x h ib its a r e r e b u tte d b y e v id e n c e th e y p r o v id e d th e p la in tif f in r e s p o n s e to h is d is c o v e ry r e q u e s t.” T u c k e rth e n b r o a d ly c la im e d th e e v id e n c e p r o v id e d in di s c ove ry s how e d the l oa n on hi s T oy ot atruc k w a s notpa s tdue i n A ugus t1995, a n d th e a c tio n s ta k e n b y th e B a n k to r e c o v e ro n h is lo a n s w e r e in c o n s is te n t w ith s ta n d a r d o p e r a tin g p r o c e d u r e s . T u c k e rla te ra lle g e d h e w o u ld p r e v a il a t tr ia l if a llo w e d to p r e s e n t th e e v id e n c e o u tlin e d in h is c o m p la in t a n d R I C O s ta te m e n t. T uc ke rf a i l e d t o di r e c tthe di s tr i c tc our tt o e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d t o de m ons tr a t e he c o u ld p r o v e th e a lle g e d p r e d ic a te R I C O a c ts . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin concl ud i ng these vagu e c l ai m s w er e i nsuffi ci entt o carryT ucker’ s s um m ary ju d g m e n t b u r d e n , a n d in ap p ly in g th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta n d a r d . I I . CONCL US I ON T ucker fa i l ed t o p re se ntany e vi dence the B ank com m i tt ed on e or m ore predi ca t e R IC O ac t s. F urtherm ore, the courtdi d n oterr i n app l yi ng the sum m ary j udgm e nts t a nda r d. AF F I RME D.