## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J ESUST ELL O a nd K ENNETHH IL L, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 05 C R 240

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Judge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 10, 2012

— D ECIDED J UL Y 18, 2012

Befo re B AUER, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e. J es u s T ello an d K en n et h H ill, b ot h m em b er s o f th e M i lw au ke e c h ap te r of th e L at in K i ng s s t r e e t g a ng, pl e a de d g ui l t y t o a c ha r g e tha tthey had conspi re d t o c on d uct the aff ai rs o fthe Lati n K i ngs th ro u gh a p at te rn of rac ke te er in g a c t i v i ty
. See 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1962 ( d). Tel l o appeal s hi s convi cti on, conte nd i n g t h at the a cts ofr acke tee ring r efer en c ed in his ple a a gr ee-2 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933

m ent v ar i ed m ate ri al l y fro m tho se alle ged i n the i nd i ctm ent. I n ess ence, he conte nd s that he ple aded gu ilty to an o ffense differ ent fro m the one w i th wh i ch he was c h ar ge d . H ill con te st s t h e s en te n c e h e re c eiv e d follow in g a p ri o r , su c c es sfu l ap p ea l ch alle n gin g h is tr ea tmenta s a ca r ee r off en der
. Hi l l c o nt en ds th atthe d ist ric t c ou rton rem an d su b st an ti a l l y e n h an c ed h is o ffen se l evel b ase d o n a g r o und tha t th e g o ve r nm en t had wai ved by not ra i si ng i t soo ner. For the re aso n s t h at fol low , w e affirm Tello’ s con viction bu t vaca te H il l’s sente nce.
I. The A l m i ghty Lat in King Nati on i s a nati onal, cr i m i nal en te rp ris e c om p os ed of in d ivid u al c h ap te rs loc at ed in va riou s c itie s t h ro u gh ou t t h e c ou n tr y. Se e U ni t e d Sta tes v. O l s on , 4 50 F
. 3d 65 5, 6 61

- 62 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( des cr ibi ng o r g an i za ti o n o fLa tin Ki ngs). I ts mem be r s ha ve e ngag ed i n a c ts ofvi ol ence

— i ncl ud i ng m urder, at tem pted m urder, r obbe ry, and exto rt i on

— as w el l as nar cot i cs dist ributi on. The M i l w aukee chaptero fthe gang w as f ounded i n the m i d-19 80s an d overti m e ca m e t o contr ol a l a r g e t er rit or y on th e c ity ’s s ou th sid e. Id. a t6 62. W i thi n the M i l w aukee c h ap tero fthe gang, ther e were, at th e t im e o f th e in d ict m en t, fou r su b s e t s of th e L at in K i n g s : t h e 1 9t h Str ee t K in gs , th e Sa w ye r K in gs , th e W ild W a l k e r Ki ng s , a nd the 2 3 r d S t r e e t Ki ng s . Te l l o was a m em b er o f the 23r d S tr eet K i ngs, w hi l e H i l l w as a m em ber of the 19th Street K ings. Tell o and H il l w ere am ong f or ty- ni ne M i lw au kee

- ar ea Lati n K i ngs ind i ctedN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 3 i n Se ptem ber20 05 on charge s o fr acke tee ring, r acke

tee ring co nspir acy, nar cot i cs t ra ffi cki ng and co nspir acy, and unlawful poss ess i on a nd di str ibuti on o ffi re ar m s. Count On e o fthe i nd i ctm ent a l l ege d th at H i l l, Tel l o, a nd the o the r de fe nd a nt s c o nd ucte d o r p a r t i c i pa t e d, dir e c t l y a nd i nd i r e c t l y, i n the c o nd uc t o f the a ff a i r s o f a n e n t e r p r i s e e n g a g e d i n o r a ffe c t i n gi n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce

— nam el y, the Lati n K i ngs

— thro ugh a pat tern of r ac k e t e e r i n g a c t i v i t y, i n v i o l a t i o n o f th e R a c k e t e e r I nfl uenced and C orrupt Org ani zati ons A ct ( “RI CO ”) , 18 U
. S. C. § 1 96 2(c). R. 12 at3 ¶ 1. Thi s co unt al l ege d g en er al l y tha t “[ c] r i m i na l a ct i vi tyc om m i tt ed bythe m em bers of the L atin K ing ent erp r is e inc lud e[d] m urd er, at tem pted m urder, drug tr affi cki ng, fi re ar m o ffenses , r o bb er y, k i dna ppi ng, a ss au l t an d b at te r y, home i nv as i o n, ar so n, d riv e-b y s h oo tin gs an d int im id at ion of w itn es se s.” Id. at3 ¶ 2. I t s ubsequentl y l i ste d som e s i xty pred icate acts of racket eering th at togeth er for m ed t h e pa ttern of ra c ke te er in g t h ro u gh w h i c h th e a ffair s o f th e L at in K in gs alleg ed ly h ad be en co n d u c te d
. Id. at 9-3 6 . T ello w as id en tifie d as th e p er p et ra to r of o r a p ar tic ip an t in thre e ofthese al l ege d predi cate acts: N o. 10

— a co nspir acy to m urd er u nnam ed ri valga ng m em ber s; N o. 14

— th e att em pted m urder ofan ind i vi du albythe n am e o f J ose Espino za; and N o. 19

— the a tte m pted m urder of Rene Carm ona, Danie l Carm ona, and Pedro Gaona, w ho w er e me mbe r s o fthe Mex i c a n Po s s e , a r i v a l g a ng . Id. a t 1 3

- 1 4 , 1 5

- 1 6 , 1 8
. Hi l l wa s s e p a r a t e l y n a me d i n c o nnecti on with fi ve predi cate act s: N os. 31 , 44 , and 45

— all i nvol vi ng the di str ibution ofo r the pos ses si on with the intent to dis tr ibute m ar ij uana; N o. 47

— th e k i dna ppi ng4 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 and i nti m i dati on o fa w itn es s f orthe pu rpos e o fo bstructi ng j usti ce; and N o. 60

— conspi ra cy w i th o ther Lati n K i ng m em ber s t o d ist ribute a nd to poss ess with th e in te n t t o d ist rib u te co c ain e, cr ac k c oc ain e, an d m ar ij u an a. Id. at23 , 28

- 30, 36
. C o untTwo o fthe i ndi ct m en t al l eg ed th atthe defe nd ants had conspi re d to conduct, and to par ti ci pat e di r ec tly o r i ndi rectly i n the c o nduc t o f, the affai rs of th e L atin K ings en terp rise throu gh a pat tern of r acke teering ac tivity, i n violation of sect ion 1962(d ). R. 1 2 a t3 7

- 3 9 ¶ 1 7

- 1 8
. T ha tp a t t e r n a l l e g e dl y i nc l ud ed a va r i ety o ffede r ala nd s ta te o ffen ses, inc l udi ngthe dist ributi on o fm ar ij uana, co cai ne, and cr ack coca i ne; k i d n a p p i n g ; w i tn e s s ta mp e r i n ga n d r e t a l i a t i o n ; h o micid e; ro b b er y; an d a r s o n . Id. The a l l eg at i o ns o fCo unt One , i nc l udi ngthe v ar i o us pr edi ca te a ct s o fr ac k et ee r i ng se t fo rt h th er e, w er e in c or p o r a te d by refe re n c e, i d. at37 ¶ 14, a nd i t was fur th era l l eg ed to b e “pa r t o f th e co nspi ra cy that each d efendant agr eed thata conspi ra tor wo u l d c o mmi ta tl e a s tt wo a c t s o fr a c k e t e er i ng acti vi ty i n the conduct of the a ff ai rs o fthe enter pri se, ” i d. at 39 ¶ 18
. L ike m os t o f th eir co -d efe n d an ts , bot h T ello an d H ill pl ea ded g ui l tyt o Co untT w o of th e i ndi ct m en t, c ha r g i ng th em w ith R IC O co n sp ira c y. B ec au se H ill d oe s n o t ch all enge hi s co nvi ctio n , w e m ay pass o verthe detai l s o f hi s guil ty ple a f or n ow and f ocus f ora m om ent o n T ello ’s w rit te n p lea ag re em en t a n d ch an ge -of-p lea co ll oquy. Count Tw o ofthe i nd i ctm ent was i ncor pora ted i nto p aragrap h 4 of Tello’ s p lea agreem en t, R
. 1473 at 1-2N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 5 ¶ 4 & Ex. A , and i n the n ex t p ar agraph ofthatag re em ent Tel l o sta ted expre ssl y that he “acknow l edges, unde r st an ds, a nd a g r ees th at he i s, i n f ac t, g ui l tyo fthe offense described i n parag ra ph 4, ” i d. at 2 ¶ 5 . T el l o al so speci fi cal l y a dm i tte d “that he conspir ed w i th o ther L a t i n Kin gg a n gme mb e r s t o c o mmi ta tl e a s tt wo quali fyi ng cr i m i nal ac t[s] i n further ance o fthe cri m i nal enter pri se. ” Id. The ag re em ent then proceeded to i denti fy tw o cri m i nal act s that Tel l o ackno w l edged ha ving com m itted i n furth eran ce of the c ha rged cons p iracy: ( 1) o n J uly12 , 20 02, T ello had fi re d shots atr i val M ex ic anPo ss e g an gmem be r s Re ne a nd Da ni elCa r m o na an d Pe dr o Ga o na ; a nd ( 2) o n Oc tobe r 2 4, 2 00 4, Te l l o a nd o th erLa ti n K ing m embe r s ha d s ex ua l c o nt ac t wi tha fem al e under the a ge of18 wh o w as unco n sc i ous for m uch ofthe ass aul t, an o ffense f orwh i ch Tel l o w as subse q u en tly co n vic te d in s ta te c o u r t
. Id. at2- 3 ¶ 5. The fi rs t ofthes e inci dents co rr espond ed t o predi cate actN o. 19 se t fort h in C ou n t O n e o f th e in d ict m en t. See R. 12 at18

- 19. T he secon d of th ese incid en ts, how ever , d id not corr es po nd t o a ny o fthe pr edi ca te a ct s al l eg ed i n Co unt One
. Te l l o a nd hi s c o un s e l s i g ne d the a g r e e ment on A pri l 1, 20 09. Tel l o appeared be f or e the co urt on Ap ri l 7, 20 09, to change hi s pl ea f ro m notgui lty to gui l ty. A fter as ce r ta i ni ngtha t Te l l o unde r st o o d the v ar i o us r i g ht s he w as giv in g u p by p lea d in g g u ilt y , t h e c ou rtas ke d T ello whe th e r h e h a d r e v i e we d th e f a c t s a l l e g e d i n C o u n tT wo an d the ad d iti o na l f ac ts s etf o r thi n pa r ag r aph5 o fthe ple a a gr eem ent, and Tello sai d that he had. R. 18 24 at 6. The c o ur tthe n a s k e d T e l l o wh e the r tho s e we r e the f acts6 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 to w hi ch he intended to ple ad gui l ty , and Tel l o answ er ed i n the affi rm ati ve. Id. T h e c ou rtth en co n firm ed th at T ello ha d no que st i ons a bo utthe pl ea, tha t he unde r st o o d the m ax i m um p enal ti es tha t m i g htb e i m po se d o n h i m , a nd t h a t it w as h is w ish to p lea d gu ilty
. Id. at6- 7. Tel lo th en form ally p l ea d ed “[g ]u ilty ” t o C ou n t T w o. Id. at7. S at i sfi ed th atTe l l o was pl ea di ngg ui l ty kn owi ng l y, i ntel l i gentl y, and voluntari l y, the dist rict co urt accepte d h is p lea an d fou n d h im gu ilty
. Id. at8. Subse quent to Tel l o’ s guil ty ple a, the cour t he ld an evi denti ar y hea ring to a ss ess Tel l o’ s cul pabi l i ty w i th re spect to a thi rd cr i m i nal act

— i denti fi ed as predi cate act N o. 14 i n Co un tOn e o fthe i nd i c t men t, R
. 1 2 a t1 5- 16

— i nvol vin g the at tem pted m urder ofJ ose Espino za on or ab ou t Ju n e 4 , 200 2. R . 1 6 6 6 . E sp in oz a h ad be en sh otin the he ad but m i ra cul ou sly had surv i ved the att ack. Tel l o denied that he w as the ind i vi du alwh o shot Espino za, a nd a s th e g o ve r nm en t co nt en ded th e sh ooting co ns titute d rel evan t con d uc t tha t the cou rt sh ou ld con side r i n sen ten cing T ell o, i t w a s nec essary f orthe cour t t o t ak e evidence and rendera fi nd i ng as to whethe r Te l l o was i n f ac t th e sh o o te r . Thi s was a c o nt i ngencythatthe parti es had anti c ip at ed i n the ple a a gr eem ent. R. 14 73 at 6 ¶ 14. A fter c onsider i ng the ev i dence pr es en te d a t th athe ar i ng, i nc l ud ing th e te st i m o ny of E sp in oz a h i m s e l f, th e c ou rtfou n d th at T ello h ad in f act shotEspino za and that purs u an t t o sect i on 1 B1. 3 o f th e S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s, this c o ns ti tu te d r el ev an t conduct f orse ntenci ng purpose s. R. 1748. Te l l o wa s s e n t e n c e d o n J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 0
. T h e g u i d e l i ne g o ve r ni ngRI CO o ffen se s di r ec ts the c o ur t to us e th eN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 7

The c our topt ed n ot t o t ake the Es pi noz a s hoo t i ng i nt o a c c ount 1 i n c al c ul at i ng the off en s e l eve l be c aus e, ac c or di ng to the pr ob a t i ono ffi c e r ’ s a s s e s s m e nt, thats ho ot i ng wou l d h a ve prod uced a higher base of f ense le vel than the one th e p a rt ie s h a d ad o p te d in th ei r p le a ag re em en t. S eeR. 1 4 7 3 a t6 ¶ 15 ( plea agree m ent) ( speci fying b a se off ense l evel of27) ; Rev is ed PSR dated J une 22, 2010 at6 ( ass igning base offen se l ev el of30 t o Es pi noz a s hoo t i ng) ; R. 18 25 at10 ( s en t en c i ng h ea ri ng) ( ado pting base of f ense l evel of27 i n accor d w ith plea agree

m en t). offense l eve l appli cabl e t o one ofthe pred ica te o ffenses u n d e r lyin g t h e R IC O ch ar ge if th at offe n se lev el is g r e a t e r tha n the de f aul t l e v e l s pe c i fi e d b y the R I CO gu id elin e. See U
. S. S. G. § 2 E1. 1. Consi sten t w i th that dir ecti ve, a n d in vi ew o fTel l o’ s a cknowle dgm ent that he had fi re d a gun atm em b er s o fthe ri valM exi can Po sse gan g o n J ul y 1 2, 2 00 2, the c o ur t r efer en ce d the gu id elin e fo r a tt em p te d m u rd er . See U
. S. S. G. § 2 A 2. 1. 1 The cour t then appli ed a three

- l eve l enhancem ent t o the b ase o ffense l eve l sp ecifi ed by that gui del i ne bas ed on the degr ee ofi nj ury that had been infl i cted o n Rene Carm ona ( h e w as shoti n the l eg) i n that att ack. R. 1 82 5 at1 0- 11
. Th e p ar ti es ha d no t ag r ee d t o tha t en h an c em en t in th e p lea ag re em en t, bu t t h ey h ad ac kn ow ledged that the gov er nm ent w as f re e to seekthatenhancem ent at sente nci ng. R. 1473 at 6 ¶ 14. Tel lo’s ad j usted offense l eve l, co up l ed w i th hi s crim in alhi sto ry, r esul ted i n an advi sor y s entenci ng r ange of12 1 t o 151 m on th s. The cour t opted to i m pose a sente nce at the to p of th at r an g e, c i tinga m o ngo th erf ac to r s Te l l o ’ s si g ni fi ca nt8 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 deg r ee o fi nv o l ve m en t wi ththe L ati n Ki ng s, the v i o l en t na tu re of th e crim inal acts T ell o had com m itted i n further ance o ft h e conspi ra cy, and hi s l ack ofco oper ati on w i th the autho ri ti es. H i l l was i ni ti al l y c l ass i fi ed as a ca re ero ffender ( a desi gn at ion th at ad d ed 13 lev els to h is fin al off en se lev el) and w as o r de r e d t o s e r v e a p r i s o n t e r m o f1 8 8 mo nths
. See U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1.1. H e a p p ealed , cha ll en ging th e careero ffen derde si g na ti o n. W e co nc l ude d tha t be ca us e o ne ofthe tw o pri orco nvi cti ons on wh i ch thatdesi gnat ion re ste d

— a co nv i ct i o n in W i sc o ns i n s ta te c o ur t f o r s eco nd degre e r eckl essly endangering sa fety

— did notco nsti tute a crim e of viol en ce, H il l d id not qu ali fy as a c a r e e r off e n d er . U nite d State s v. H il l , 372 F
. A pp ’ x 656 , 65 7- 58 (7th C ir. 2010) (non -p r e c ed en tial d ecision). W e the refore rem an d ed f or resent en cing, directing th e d istri ct cou rt o n r emand to a ddr es s H i l l ’ s fur th erc o nt en ti o n tha t th e co nduc t unde r l y i nghi s r ec k less e nda ng er m en t co nvi c ti on was car ri ed out i n further ance o fthe conspi ra cy to w h ich h e h ad p lea d ed gu ilty a n d th er efo re sh ou ld n otbe inc lu d ed in h is c rim in al h ist or y ca lcu lat ion
. Id. at 658. On r emand, the di st r i ct cou rta cc ept ed th e g o ve r nm ent’ s a rgum ent, notrais ed pre vi ousl y, thatH i l l was an acc ess or y a fterthe f act to a m urder c om m itted by a fello w L at in K i n gs m em b er . See U
. S. S. G. § 2 X3. 1. The . 32- ca l ibe r r ev o l ve r us ed to c o m m i t th atmurd er was a m o ng f o urfi r ea r m s th atwer e di sc o ve r ed i n a s ea r cho fthe res iden ce of H il l’ s girl fri en d on th e d ay after the m urder
. The wea po ns wer e se cr eted abo ve the c ei l i ngi n theN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 9 bed room that H il l us ed
. H ill ad m itted to i nv estigators that he al l owed the Lati n K i ngs t o use that r es id ence to sto re weapons, and h e ga ve them detai l s a s t o how thre e o fthe f o urfi r e a r ms ha d c o me t o b e the re . H e deni ed knowing that the . 32-ca liber r evo l verwas p resen t or w he re i t cam e from , how ever. To rebu t H il l’ s cl ai m o fi g no r an ce , the g o ve r nm en t el i ci te d t es ti m o ny f ro m a pol i ce det ecti ve at H i l l ’ s re se ntenci ng tha t g i ven H ill’s st at u s a s a h igh -ra n kin g m em b e r of t h e L at in K in gs ( H i l l w as a “Casi nca, ” or seco nd i n com m and), it w as “enti re l y unl i kel y” that anothe r ga ng m em ber woul d s to r e a m ur derwea po n a t th e r esi d en ce wi th o ut H ill’s k n o w led ge . R. 18 57at12 . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtin tu rn fou n d it “b ey on d
. . . co m p re h e n s i o n ” t h at H ill wou l d n o t h a v e k n o wn th a t th e g u n wa s s t o r e d att he re sid en c e in th e c e i l i n g ab ov e h is b ed ro om . Id. at28
. The cour t found that Hil l ’ s know i ng co nceal m en t o f th e w eap on w as su ffici en t to rend er him an ac cess ory aft er th e fa c t t o t h e m u rd er . Id. at28

- 29. The fi nd i ng tha t Hil l was an ac cess ory afte r the f act had t h e effect ofr ai si ng hi s o ffense l eve l and substa nti al l y incre asi ng the se ntencing range re com m ended by th e Sent en cing G uid eli ne s . A bsen t tha t find ing, H il l’ s tot alo ffense l eve l would hav e b ee n 16, as i nd i cate d i n the up dated prese ntence re port prepar ed by the pr obation office r on rem an d
. W he n cou p led w ith H il l’ s cri m i nal hi sto ryo fVI, thatwould have produced an a dv i s o r y s e nt e nc i ngr a ng e o f4 6 t o 5 7mo nths ; a l tho ugh that ra nge was s up er seded by the st at utor y m i ni m um o f 60 m on th s s p ec ified by 18 U .S.C
. § 9 24 (c ). See U. S
. S
. G.10 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 § 5G 1.1( b). B y con trast, th e ap p li cation of t h e a cce ssory gu i de l i ne r e s ul t e d in a t o t a l o ffe ns e l e v e l o f2 7, wh i ch i n turn yi el d ed a n a dvis or y s entenci ng r ange of13 0 t o 16 2 m ont hs, mor e th ant wi ce the o r i g i na l r an g e. The cour t or dered H i l l to ser ve a sente nce at the top of that ra nge, 16 2 m onths. T h e g ov er n m en t firs t ra ise d its co n te n tio n th at H ill w as an acc ess or y a fterthe fac t to the m urder i n a l ett er i t s ent t o t h e cour t in advance o fH i l l ’ s r ese ntenci ng. R. 17 86. The acc ess or y- after
- th e-f act gui del i ne was not o ne r efer enced in Hi l l ’ s pl ea a g r ee m en t, de spi te the p ar tie s’ a c kn ow led gm en t t h at th e g u n u se d to co m m it th e m u rd e r h ad be en d isc ov er ed in h is gir lfrien d ’s re sid en c e (referred to i n th e agreem en t as H il l’ s residen ce), R. 11 30 at 3- 4, and their fur theracknow l edgm ent that the par ti es had “dis cussed al l o ft h e sentenci ng g uidel i ne s pr o v i s i o ns whi c h the y b e l i e v e t o b e a pp l i c a b l e to the o ffen se . . . , ” i d. at6 ¶ 12
. S i m i l ar l y, the proba ti on offi cerm ade no fi nd i ng tha t Hil l qual i fi ed as an acc essor y afterthe f act, ei theri n the prese ntence re portpre par ed f o r Hi l l ’ s o r i g i na l s en te nc i ngo r f o r the s ec o nd se n te n c in g on rem an d f r om th e p rior ap p ea l. H ill h i m se lf ob j ec te d to th e g ov er n m en t’s n ew arg u m en t in a h an d w rit te n let te r to th e c o u rt, no tin g t h at “t h e s ole pur po se ” f or w hich he was b efo r e th e co ur t a se co nd ti m e was f orr ese ntenci n g afterthe cour t dete rm i ned how hi s r eckl ess endanger m ent c onvicti on was to be tr eat ed vi s- à- vi s hi s cr i m i nal hi sto ry . R. 17 93 at 2.N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 11 II. As we ha v e no t e d, Te l l o c ha l l e ng e s hi s c o nv i c ti on o n appeal, wh er ea s H i l l chal l enges hi s s entence
. W e t ake ea cha ppea l i n tur n.
A
. T ello Tel l o el ec ted to pl ead gui l ty to the RI CO co nspir acy charg e set f or th i n Count Tw o i n a w ri tte n ple a a gr eem ent. I n hi s pl ea agr eem ent, he a l so acknow l edged r esponsibi l i ty f ortwo cr i m es com m itt ed i n further ance o fthe a l l eg ed co ns pi r ac y : ( 1) th e J ul y 2 00 2 sh o o ting at ta cko n r i va l M ex i ca n P o sse g an gmem be r s Re ne Car m o na , Da ni elCa r m o na , a nd Pe dr o Ga o na ; a nd ( 2) the October2 00 4 sexu alas saul t o n a m i norfem al e. The fi rs t ofthes e i nc i de nt s wa s a mon gthe p r e di c a t e a c t s o fr a cketee ring at tr ibuted to Tel l o i n Count One ofthe i nd i ctm en t ( th e su bs ta nt i ve RI CO ch ar g e) b utthe s econd w as not. Tel l o ar gues that h is guil ty ple a ( and thus hi s co nvi cti on) i s inval i d because the se x ual as saul t char ge r ef er en c e d i n h i s p l e a a g r e e me n twa s n o to n e o fthe predi cate act s o fr acke tee ring i denti fi ed i n the i nd i ctm ent. Tel l o ass um es that the pr edi cate acts o fr acke

tee ring a tt rib uted to hi m i n Count One becam e par t o f the RIC O co nspir acy al l ege d i n Count Tw o and ser ved to del i neate the param ete rs o fthatco nspir acy. H i s pl ea ag r e e me n t, h o we v e r, a c k n o wl e d g e d o n l y o n e o fthe th r ee pr edi ca te a ct s at tr ibut ed to h im i n Co untOne an d adde d a se co nd th at was ne ve r m en ti o ne d i n the12 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933

Bec aus e the pl ea ag re em en tom i t t ed m en t i on oft wo ofthe 2 pre di c at e acts m en t i one d i n the i ndi c t m en t, on e m i ghtar gue thatthe om is si on const ituted a narrow ing ofthe charged co n sp ir a cy a n d th u s a v a ri a n ce fro m th e i n d i ct m en t. See, e . g. , U n ite d S ta te s v . R o sin , 892 F. 2d 649, 651 ( 7th C ir
. 1990) ( variance na r r ows c ha r ge s i n i nd i c t m e nt, whe r e a s c on s t r uc t i ve a m e nd

m en tbr oade ns bas es f or c onvi c t i on by e s t abl i s hi ng o ff en se notful l y c ont ai ne d withi n i ndi c t m en t )
. How eve r, be c aus e the p lea a g reem en t also referen ces a p red icate a ct n o t alleg ed in the i ndi c t m en t, an d bec ause it is Tel l o’ s c ont en t i on thathe pled g u ilt y to an off ense dist inctfrom the one w ith w hich he w as c har ge d, we vi ew the c ons t ru c t i ve am en dm en t d octr in e a s t he on e m ost ap p ro p riate to the a rg u m en t Te llo i s m aki ng. i nd i ctm ent. Thus, i n Tel l o’ s v i ew , ther e was a dispar i ty be twe enthe RI CO co ns pi r ac y a l l eg ed i n the i nd i ct m en t an d the o ne de scribed in h i s pl ea a g r ee m en t, wi ththe r es ul t th athe pl ea ded g ui l tyto a c o ns pi r ac y di ffer en t f r om th e o n e w ith w h ich h e w as ch ar ge d . A lth ou gh T ello d oe s n o t u se th e t er m “c on st ru c tiv e a m en d m en t,” h is ar gum ent i s, i n ess ence, a c on te nti on that the pl ea proce eding( i nc l udi ngb o ththe pl ea a g r ee m en t an d th e ch an g e- o f

- pl ea he ar i ng ) c o ns truct i ve l y a m en ded th e conspi ra cy charg e a nd ther eby vi ol ate d Tell o’ s F i fth A m en d m en t rig h t t o ind ict m en t b y a gra n d j u ry on all ch arges for w hich he is held to an sw er. U
. S. C O NST . a men d. 5; see U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 47 1 U.S
. 13 0, 14 0, 10 5 S
. C t. 1811 , 1817( 1985 ); Stiro ne v . U nited Sta tes , 361 U
. S. 212, 21 7, 8 0 S. C t. 27 0, 27 3 (1 96 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Has ki ns , 5 11 F. 3d 688, 69 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. Tel l o bel i eve s h i s guil ty 2 ple a i s inval i d by r eas on o fthe d isp ar i ty, and he s eek sN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 13 to have hi s pl ea and convic tio n setas i de and the ca se re m anded f orfurtherpro ceedings. B ec au se T e l l o fa iled to rais e t h is iss u e b elo w an d d id not askthe dist ri ct c ourtf or l eave to withdraw his gui l ty p lea , ou r re vie w is for p lain err or . E.g
. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. P erez , 67 3 F .3d 66 7, 66 9 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v. G ri ff in , 5 2 1 F .3 d 72 7, 73 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). U n d er th e p lain er ro r sta nd ar d o f revi ew , we w i l l r eve rs e the di str i ct cour t’s ju dgm ent o nl y i fwe fi nd : ( 1) an e rr oro r defe ct (2 ) tha t i s cl ea r o r o bv i o us ( 3) a ffec tingthe de fend an t’s su bs ta nt i alr i g ht s ( 4) a nd s er i o us l y i m pug ni ngthe f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, or pu bl i c r eputati on o fj ud i ci alpro c ee d in gs . P erez , 67 3 F
. 3d at 669 ( quoti n g U nited Sta tes v. Ande rs on , 6 04 F
. 3d 99 7, 1 00 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) )
. I n the prese n t context, a pla i n er ro r i s o ne thatr ai ses a re aso nabl e pr obab i l i ty that the d efend ant would not h av e p lea d ed gu ilty ab se n t t h e e r r o r . E.g
. , G ri ff in , 52 1 F. 3d at 730. T o und er sta nd w hy Tel l o’ s ar gum ent f ai l s, it is necess ar y t o appreci ate the dist i ncti on be tw een the subst an ti ve RI CO ch arge s etf o r thi n Co untOne o fthe i ndi ct m en t

— to w hi ch Tel l o did notp lead g uil ty

— an d th e rack et ee r i ngc o ns pi r ac y c ha r g e se t f o r thi n Co unt T wo

— to w hi ch he did ple ad gui l ty. Count One al l ege d a vi o l at i o n o fs ec ti on 19 62 ( c)
. Tha t se ct i o n o fthe sta tute m ake s i t unl aw ful “forany perso n em plo yed by o r a sso ci at ed wi tha ny e nt er pr i se e ng ag ed i n, o r the activ i ti es ofwh i ch affect, i nter sta te orf or ei gn co m m er ce, to c onduc t o r pa r ti ci pat e, di r ec tly o r i ndi r ec tly, i n the con d uc t of su ch ente rp rise’s affai rs throu gh a pat tern14 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 ofr ack et ee ring ac ti vi ty
. . . . ” In shor t, se cti on 1 962( c) m akes i t a cr i m e t o oper ate o r m anage an e nter pri se affecting i nter st ate co m m er ce thro ugh a pat tern ofr acke

te er in g a c tiv ity
. Brou werv. Raf fensp erge r, H ugh e s & Co. , 199 F. 3d 961, 96 3- 64 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( const rui ng R eves v. Ern s t& Young, 507 U
. S. 170, 113 S. C t. 1163 ( 1993 ))
. The statute i n tur n de fi ne s a pat te r n o fr ac k et ee r i ng ac ti vi tyt o r equi r e atl ea st tw o a ct s o fr ac k et ee r i ng a c t i v i t y c o mm i t t e d wi thin a t e n- y e a r p e r i o d. See1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 961( 5)
. To b e guil ty ofthe substa nti ve 196 2(c) o ffense, then, an ind i vi du alm ust, am ong othe r thi ngs, part i ci pate in tw o or m ore pred icate acts of racke t e e r in g. § 1962 (c); see Sa l i n a s v . U nited Sta tes , 52 2 U.S
. 52 , 62

- 63, 11 8 S
. Ct. 469, 47 6 ( 1997 ); Uni t e d S t a t e s v . F l e mmi, 24 5 F
. 3d 24, 26 (1s t C ir. 20 01 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i az , 17 6 F
. 3d 5 2, 93 ( 2d C ir. 19 99 ); U nited Sta tes v. Va cca ro , 11 5 F
. 3d 1211, 12 20 (5t h C ir. 19 97 ); U nite d State s v. Starret t, 55 F. 3d 1525 , 15 53- 54 (11th Cir. 1995). Cou ntTwo, b y c o nt r as t, cha rge d Te l l o wi thc o ns pi r i ng to c o nduc t th e aff ai r s o fthe La tin Ki ng s through a p atte r n of racket eering, in violation of sect ion 1962(d ). W he r ea s su bs ec ti o ns ( a) th r o ug h ( c) o f se ct i o n 19 62 are aim ed atsu b st an tiv e R IC O offe n se s, su b se c tio n (d ) is ai m ed atthe unl awfula g r ee m en t to c o m m it on e o fthe su b stanti ve offenses i denti fi ed i n the prece ding subsectio n s, see Uni t e d S t at e s v . Qui n t anilla , 2 F. 3d 1469 , 14 84 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ; and i n thi s ca se, Count T w o al l ege d that Tel l o an d h i s co defe nd ants had conspi re d to vi ol ate subsect i on ( c)
. I n or der t o estab lish Tel l o’ s guil t o n Cou ntTwo, i t was no t ne ce ss ar y t o s ho w tha t heN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 15 actual l y c onducted the a ffair s o fthe Lati n K i ngs, o r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n th e c o n d u c t o f th o s e a ff a i r s , thr o ug h a pattern ofr acke tee ring acti vi ty com pri si ng atl eas t tw o p re dica te acts o fr acke tee ring. That would have b een the pro ofnece ssa ryto es tabl i sh Tel l o’ s guil t o n Count On e, wh i ch al l ege d a subst anti ve RI CO o ffense. Bu t the se cti on 1 962 (d ) co nspir acy provi si on, unl i ke sectio n 19 62 (c ), is n ota su b st an tiv e R IC O offe n se . Q ui nt ani l l a, 2 F.3d at 14 84 ; see also U nited Sta tes v. G lecier, 923 F
. 2d 496, 499- 500 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91). I t punis hes the ag re em ent t o c om m it s u c h an offe n se . G oren v. N ew Vision Int’l, Inc. , 15 6 F.3 d 7 21 , 731 (7t h C ir. 19 98 ), m odifie d in otherres pects by B rou w er, 199 F.3d a t 9 65 ; G lecier, 92 3 F
. 2d at 500. A se cti on 1962 ( d) c onspira c y c harg e thus does not re quir e pr oo f that the defendant com m i tte d tw o predi cate acts ofr acke

te er in g, Sal i nas , 522 U
. S. at 63, 65- 66, 118 S. Ct. at47 6, 47 8, th at h e a gr ee d to co m m it t w o p re d ica te ac ts , i b i d. , or, f o r th a tma t t e r, th a ta n y s u c h a c t s w e r e u l t i ma t e l y c o mm itt ed by an yo n e, i d. a t 63 , 1 18 S
. Ct
. at 4 76 ( no ting t h a ts e c t i o n 1 9 6 2 ( d ) i n c l u d e s “ n o r e q u i r e m e n to fs o me ov er t a c t or s p ec ific a c t” ); Gagan v
. Am e r i ca n Cab l e vi s i on, Inc. , 77 F. 3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 1996). Te l l o ’ s appe alf ai l s to r eco g ni ze thi s di st i nc ti o n. H i s a rgum ent, f ocuse d as i t i s o n the differen ce b etwe enthe p re di ca te a ct s r efer en ce d i n the i ndi ct m en t and those i denti fi ed i n hi s pl ea agr eem ent, pre sum es that proo fo fatl eas t t w o sp ecifi c pre dica te acts o fr acke

tee ring tha t he com m i tte d (o r agr eed to co m m i t) was a pr er equi si te t o hi s co nv i ct i o n f or rac k et ee r i ngc o ns pi r a c y u nd e r s e c t i o n 1 9 6 2 ( d)
. T hi s i s the v e r y p r e s umpti o n tha t th e S upr eme Co ur t i n Sal i nas d es c rib ed as16 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 “wr o ng . ” 52 2 U. S
. at 6 3, 1 18 S
. Ct
. a t 47 6. I n o r dert o c o nvi cta de fen dan t unde r s ec ti o n 1 96 2( d) , the g overn m en t n e e d o n l y p r o v e tha t he ag r e e d th a ts o me m em ber ( s) o f the c onspi ra cy w oul d com m i t tw o orm or e pr edi cate acts , not that the defe nd ant hi m sel f com m i tte d o r agr eed to co m m it s u c h ac ts
. U nited States v. Benabe, 65 4 F
. 3d 753, 77 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( ci ti ng Sal i nas , 52 2 U.S
. at65

- 66; 11 8 S . C t. at 47 8), cert. denied , 1 32 S. Ct. 10 51, 10 54, 16 12, 19 8 6 (2 01 2); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cam pi one, 94 2 F
. 2d 429, 43 7 (7t h C ir. 19 91 ); see also G lecier, 92 3 F
. 2d at 500 (“N eit her o ve r t ac ts no r s pec i fi c pr edi ca te a ct s th atthe de fen dan t agr eed per sonal l y t o com m it need be a l l ege d orpro ved for a se c tio n 19 62 (d ) offe n se .”) (c ita tio n s o m itt ed ); U nited S t a t e s v . Ne a p o l i t an , 7 91 F. 2d 489, 49 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 86) (“[S] ecti on 1 962( d) [ i s] br oad eno ugh to enco m pass th o se pe r so ns who , whi l e i nt i m at ely i nv olved i n the conspi ra cy, nei therag re ed to per sonal l y c om m i t no r actuall y par ti ci pated i n the com m i ssi on o fthe predi cate c rim es .”), abrogation o n othergrounds rec ognized by U nited Sta tes v. R o gers , 89 F. 3d 1326, 133 6 -3 7 ( 7th Cir. 19 96 ); D eGuell e v. C am il li, 664 F.3d 192 , 204 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ); G o ren , 15 6 F
. 3d at 731. Tel l o’ s underst anding of RICO conspi ra cy i s o ne that i m pr o per l y a tt empts t o i m po r t th e r equi r ements o fthe su bs ta nt ive offen se s etf o r thi n s ubs ec ti o n ( c) o fthe sta tute i nto the c onspi ra cy offen se i denti fi ed i n subse ct i o n ( d) , b y de m an di ngtha t ea chna m ed defen dan t ag r ee t o c o m m i t atl ea sttwo pr edi ca te act s o fr ac k et ee r i ng hi m sel f
. Those acts i n turn w ou ld b ecom e e sse nti alel em en ts o fthe c ha r g ed co ns pi r ac y, thus g i vi ng rise t o the ty pe o fa r g um en t Te l l o i s m ak i ngi n thi s appe al
. But Tel l o’ s und er sta nd i ng w oul d s eve r sect i on 1962 ( d ) fromN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 17 its roo ts in t ra d itio n al c on sp ira c y l aw . Se eNe apol i t an , 79 1 F
. 2d at4 97
. Or di na r y c o ns pi r ac y pr i nc i pl es r eq uire onl y that the co nspir ato rs em bra ce a co m m on cr i m i nal ob j ec tiv e. See, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gr e en , 64 8 F
. 3d 569, 57 9 (7t h C i r . 2 01 1); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ki ng, 62 7 F
. 3d 641, 65 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. H ere, th e agr eed- to goa l would be that the a ff ai rs o fthe en terpri se w oul d be ca rr i ed out thro ugh a pa t t e r n o ft wo o r mo r e r a c k e t e e r i nga c t s c o mm i tte d b y s om e m em b er or m em b er s o ft h e c on sp ira c y. See Qui n t anilla , 2 F .3d at14 84 -85 ; see also B rou w er, 19 9 F
. 3d at 967 (d efe n d a n t m us t know ingly agree to perform ser vi ces ofa ki nd w h ich f aci l i tat e the act i vi ti es oftho se w ho o perat e the en te rp ri se)
. Requi ring an agr eem ent b y ea c h co n sp ira t o r t o c om m it t w o p re d ica te ac ts h im se lf woul d r equi r e a deg r ee o fpe r so na l i nv olv ementi n the o ffe n s e th a ti s u n p r ec ede n t e d i n c o n s p i r a c y l a w. N e apol i t an , 7 91 F
. 2d at4 97

- 98
. Inde ed, b y makingthe com m iss i o n o ft wo o r mor e pr edi ca te a ct s bye ac h c o nsp irator an essen tial elem en t of th e offen se, T ell o’s un d erstan d ing of R I C O cons p iracy w ou ld esse nt ial ly re q u ire that a defendan t co m m i t the subst anti ve RI CO o ffense seto ut i n subsec ti on ( c) o fthe sta tute, and ther eby rend er the con sp iracy offen se set ou t in su b s ection ( d ) a n u llity
. G lecier, 92 3 F
. 2d at 501; s eeals o Q uint a nill a , 2 F.3d a t 1 485. That r esul t would be i nconsi ste nt with tr ad it ion al p rin c ip les of st at u to ry int er p re ta tio n . See, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. At l ant i c Res e a rch Corp. , 55 1 U.S
. 12 8, 13 7, 12 7 S . C t. 2 33 1, 23 37(20 07 ); D un ca n v . Wa lk er, 533 U
. S. 16 7, 17 4, 12 1 S . C t. 21 20 , 212 5 (2 00 1). H avi ng i n m i nd the b asi c di stincti on be tw een a char ge ofa substa nti ve RI CO vi ol ati on under s ecti on 1 962( c)18 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933

an d a cons p iracy cha rge u n d er section 19 62(d ), w e turn ou r att enti on t o w hat was al l ege d i n the conspi ra cy ch ar g e se t f o r thi n Co untTwo of the i ndi ct m en t ag ain stT ello an d h is c od efe n d an ts , an d th en w e w ill com pare thos e al l ega ti ons to the f acts that Tello ad m i tte d in plead ing gu ilt y . Ou r review of C ou nt Tw o and Tello’ s gui l ty ple a nece ssa ri l y m ust f ocus on the ess enti al el em ents of RI CO conspi ra cy, f or i t i s only a d iverge nce between al leg atio ns and proo fas to tho se el em ents th atwi l l r esult in a c o ns truct i ve a m en dm en t o fthe c h ar ge . See M iller, 47 1 U.S
. at13 6, 10 5 S
. Ct. at18 15 ( “A par t o fthe i nd i ct m en t unne ce ss ar y t o a nd i nde pen den t ofthe al l ega ti ons o f t he o ffense prove d m ay nor m al l y b e tr eat ed as ‘a u se less ave rm ent’ that‘ m ay be i gnor ed. ’ ”) ( quoti ng Fo rd v . U nited Sta tes , 27 3 U.S
. 59 3, 60 2, 47S
. Ct. 53 1, 53 4 (1 92 7)); U ni t ed Stat e s v. Ci na , 69 9 F
. 2d 853, 85 7- 58 (7th C ir. 1983) (“In gen eral, either an am e n d m e n t or a var i ance wil l be al l owed to st and i fi t doe s no t c hange an
‘ ess enti al ’ or ‘ m ate ri al ’ el em ent o fthe charg e s o as to c au se p rej u d ice to th e d efe n d an t.” ); see also U nited Sta tes v. A lhalabi, 443 F. 3d 605, 613 (7th C ir. 2006); U ni t e d S t at e s v. K ri li ch , 159 F .3 d 10 20 , 102 7 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ); U nited Sta tes v. Le i ch t nam , 948 F.2d 370, 377 (7th Cir. 1991); U nited S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 798 F.2d 102 4, 1032 -33 (7th C ir. 1986). Fo r an indic tm ent t o adequatel y s et f or th the el em ents ofa ra cket eer i ng co nspir acy, i t nee d onl y c harg e

— after iden tifying a p rop er ente rp rise and the d efend an t’s ass ocia ti on with that enter pri se

— th atthe de fen dan t knowingl y j oi ned a co nspir acy, the obj ecti ve of which w as to oper ate thatente rpri se th ro u gh a pattern ofr acke

te er in g a c tiv ity
. G lecier, 92 3 F
. 2d at 500
. He r e , Co untT wo ofthe i nd i ctm ent a l l ege d, i n re l evantpart :N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 19 15
. At v ar i o us t i m es r el ev an t to thi s I nd ictm en t, the d efe n d a nt s nam ed i n C ou nt Tw o and others kn ow n an d u n kn ow n, w er e m em b er s a n d as so c iate s o fthe La t i n Ki ng s , a c r i mi na l o r g a ni z a t i on w hose m em ber s a nd as sociates e ngage d i n acts of vi olence , i nc lud ing m u rd er, attem p ted m urd er, r o bb er y, e xt o r ti o n a nd di st r ibut i o n o fc o ntr olle d su b st an c es , an d w h ich op er at ed p rin c ip ally on th e s ou th sid e o f M ilw au ke e.

* * * 17
. F r o m o n o r abo utJ an ua r y 1 , 1 99 8, a nd c o nt inu i ng unt i l a t l ea stS ept embe r 2 7, 2 00 5, i n the S tat e an d Easter n Dis tr i ct o fW i sco nsi n, and el sew here , [ the defendants, i ncl ud i ng]
. . . J esus Tel l o, a/k/ a/

“ S p i d e r, ”
. . . t o g e th e r wi th ot he r p e r s o n s kn o wn an d u n known , being m em ber s a nd as soc i ate s o f the r acke tee ring ent er pri se describ ed i n paragr aphs 2 thro ugh 17 that i s, the Lati n K i ngs, an enter pri se, wh i ch engag ed i n, and the acti vi ti es of w h ich affecte d, i nter sta te and fo re i gn co m m er ce, knowingl y a nd i ntenti onal l y c onspi re d to vi ol ate Tit l e 1 8, U ni ted S tat es C od e §1962( c) , thati s, to conduct and parti ci pate, d ire ctl y a nd i nd i re ctl y, i n the conduct of the aff ai rs of that enter pri se th r o ug h a pa tt ern o fr ac k et ee r i nga ct i vi tyi nvo lvin g m u ltip le a c ts i n d ict ab le u n d er th e p ro visi ons of Tit l e 1 8, U ni ted S tat es Code, se cti ons, 12 01, 15 1 2 , 1 5 1 3 ; a n d mu l t i p l e a c t s i n v o l v i n gv i o l a t i o ns of t h e la w s o f t h e S t at e o f W isc on sin , ch ar ge ab le un de r the pr o v i s i o ns o f W i s c o ns i n S t a t ut e s , S ec-20 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 ti o ns 9 40
. 01 , 9 39
. 32 , . . . 9 39
. 31 , 943. 32 , 9 43
. 02 a nd 940. 31; and m ult i ple act s i nvol vi ng the di str ibuti on o fco nt r o l l ed s ubs ta nc es i nc l udi ngc o ca i ne , c o ca i ne ba se i n the f o r m o f“ cr ac k ” co ca i ne a nd mar ij ua na i n v i o l a t i o n o fth e l a ws o fthe Uni t e d S t a t e s , i nc l ud

i ngTi tl e 21, Uni te d S ta te s Code , S ec ti o ns 8 41 a nd 846. 18
. I t was a pa r t o fthe co ns pi r ac y tha t ea chde fen dan t agr eed thata c on sp i ra torwould com m i t a t l eas t tw o acts o fr acke tee ring ac ti vi ty i n the conduct ofthe aff ai rs o fthe enter pri se. R
. 12 at 37-39. T he se a lle g a t ion s, acc ep ted as true, w ere suf fi c i e ntt o e s t a b l i s h tha tT e l l o kno wi ng l y a g r e e d t o conduct the aff ai rs o fthe Lati n K i ngs thro ugh a patt er n of ra cket eer in g activ i ty. A s we have disc ussed, i t was not necess ar y forTel l o to agree to co m m i t s peci fi c pre dica te acts o r to parti ci pate in the com m i ssi on o f t h os e acts as l ong as he ag re ed the acts would b e co m m i tte d on b eh alf ofth e c on sp ira c y. M CM P a rtners, Inc. v. A nd r e w sB artl et t & Assocs
. , Inc. , 6 2 F. 3d 967, 980 (7th Cir. 1995); Q uintanil la , 2 F .3 d at14 84 ; G lecier, 92 3 F
. 2d at 500. Both para gr aphs 15 and 17 ci te m ultip le ex am ple s o f ra c ke te er in g a c tiv ity in w h ich m em b er s o f th e L at in K in gs engag ed and agr eed to enga ge, i ncl ud i ng ac ts o fv i o l en ce a nd a ct s i nv o l vingthe di st r ibut i o n o fc o ntr ol l ed su b st ances, and parag ra ph 18 al l ege s that e ach defe nd ant a gr eed t h at som e m em bero fthe conspi ra cy w oul d com m i t a t l eas t tw o such predi cate act s. Fur ther detai l was unnece ssary : the i nd i ctm ent di d not nee d to i denti fy the speci fi c pre dica te acts th at Tel l o agr eed w ou ld be co m m itt ed , see Cam pi one, 94 2 F
. 2d at 43 6, 437,N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 21

norwas i t nec ess ar y for t he go ver nm ent t o prove that a n y o f th e r a c k e t e e r i n g a c t s r e fe r e n c e d i n C o u n t Two oc c u rre d ata p a r tic u lar tim e o r p lac e. B enabe, 65 4 F
. 3d at 77 7. Se e, e . g. , G lecier, 9 23 F
. 2d at 50 0- 01 ( i ndi ct m en t su fficie n t d e s p i te fac t t h at it d id n otlist s p ec ific pr e di c a t e a c t s i n whi c h de fe nd a ntwa s i nv o l ved , wher e i t al l eg ed th atde fen dan t k no wing lyj o i ne d a c o nspi ra cy, the obj ecti ve ofwh i ch w as to op er ate ente rpri se thro ugh patte rn o fr acke tee ring ac tivity c onsi sting o f m ul ti pl e ac ts o fb r ibe r y: “[Th e] s epa r at e cr i m e [ o fc o nsp iracy] cen ters on th e act of agre e m e nt, wh i ch m ake s un ne cess ary

— an d in m an y c as es im p os sib le

— th e id en tifi cati on i n the i nd i ctm ent o fspeci fi c pre d ica te acts that ha ve c om e to fr ui ti o n. ”) ( emphas i s i n o r i g i na l ) ( ci ting Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Phi l l i ps , 8 74 F.2d 12 3, 127-28 n
. 4 ( 3d Cir. 1989 ) ( i nd i ctm ent was suffi ci ent in char gi ng el em ents ofRI CO co nspir acy despit e the f act that i t di d not sp ec ify p ar tic u lar ac ts of br ibe r y a n d ex to rt ion in whi c h de fe nd a nt s we r e i nvol ve d) ; a nd U ni t e d S t at e s v. Suthe r l and, 6 56 F
. 2d 1181 , 1 19 7 ( 5th Ci r . 1 98 1) ( r ej ec ting con ten tion th at R IC O cons p iracy i nd ictm en t w as insu ffi cient ly sp ecifi c w he re ind ictm en t iden tified pa ttern ofr acke tee ring ac ti vi ty as “a num bero fbr ibes that occu rred betw een N ovem ber 1975 and J an ua ry 1980” )) ; U nite d State s v. C rocket t, 979 F.2d 120 4, 1209 -10 (7th Cir. 1992 ) (RICO cons p ir a c y i nd ictm en t suffici en t w he re it i d en tified typ es of vi olent crim es con stitut ing p attern of r acke teering, pu rp o s e s for w hich those crim es w ere car ri ed out, and ti m e fra m e du rin g w hi ch the cri m es occu rred ). I ti s t r u e tha t th e o p e n i n gp a r a g r a p h o fC o u n tT wo i ncor pora ted byr efer en c e the al l ega ti ons ofCount One,22 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 the s ubstanti ve sect i on 1 962( c) char ge, R. 12 at 39 ¶ 14 , but that b oi l er pla te did notbyi tse l fal terthe nature o f Count Tw o’ s co nspir acy charg e t o dem an d p ro ofthat Tel l o com m i tte d an y ofthe speci fi c pre dica te acts setf or th in Count One. On the c ontr ar y, para gr aph 18 al l ege s that the d efendants a gr eed that“ a con sp irator” w ou ld com m it at l east tw o p r e d ic a te acts , not th at every de fe nd a nt( i nc l ud i ngT e l l o ) wo ul d c o mm i tt wo s uc h a c t s, l etalone the s pec i fi c ac ts a tt r ibut ed to e ac h de fen dan t i n C o u n tO n e . R
. 1 2 at 39 ¶ 18 ( e mph a s i s o u r s )
. As we ha ve said , n e ither sect ion 1962(d ) nor th e case law i nt erp reting th at su bsec tion of R I C O requ ired su ch proof, an d s o a ny a l l eg ation as to o ve r t ac ts , i nc l udi ng p r e d i c a t e a c t s o fr a c k e t e e r i n g, tha t T e l l o ma y h a v e c o mm itt ed in fu rt h er an c e o f th e c h ar ge d co n sp ira c y, w o u ld co ns ti tu te s ur pl us ag e r athe r tha n a n e ss en ti ale l ement of the c ha r g ed co ns pi r ac y . S uchs ur pl us a l l eg at i o ns thus would not supp or t a l ate r charg e o fco ns tr ucti ve am endm ent b ase d on a dive rg ence between the acts alle ge d in t h e in d ict m en t a n d t h e a c ts , i f an y, ac kn ow led ge d in t h e g u ilty p lea
. Se eLe i t ch nam , 948 F. 2d at 377 (“i f th e ind ictm en t ch arges a con sp iracy and l ists overt acts , but it’s notnece ssa ryto pro ve the o ver t a cts to pr o v e the cons pi r a c y . . . , the n j ur y i ns t r uc t i o ns tha tdo not dem and proof ofthe ove rtact s do not i m perm i ssib ly am en d th e in d ict m en t” ); U nite d State s v. Franco , 87 4 F.2d 11 36 , 11 43 -44 (7t h C ir. 19 89 ) (d ist ric t c o u r t d id no t co ns truct i ve l y am en d i ndi ct m en t byi ns truct i ng j ur y tha t i t nee d no t fi nd de fen dan t g ui l tyo fc o m m i tt i ng ove rtact s ( orm eans and m etho ds ofthe conspi ra c y) setf o r th i n nine e xt r a p a r a g r a ph s o fi nd i c t men t, asN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 23 these were unnecessar y t o est abl i sh defendant’s gui l t o n c on sp ira c y c h ar ge ); Wi l l i a ms , 798 F. 2d at 1032 -33 (jury i ns truct i o ns di d no t co ns truct i ve l y a m en d i ndi ct m en t by not i denti fyi ng as el em ents ofchar ged co nspir acy the speci fi c ro l es of conspi ra tor s and v ar i ous ov er t acts com m i tte d in further ance of charg ed conspi ra cy w hi ch w er e s et f or th i n sev en par agr aphs ofthe i nd i ctm ent, as thos e a l l ega ti ons w er e unneces sar y t o est abl i sh defend an t’s guilt on con sp iracy cha rge). The ple a a gr eem ent, wh i ch Tel l o and his co unsel sig n ed , in tu rn t r a c ke d an d ad m itt ed th e e ss en tia l alleg at ion s o f C ou n t T w o, th u s e st ab lish in g T ello ’s g u ilt o n the c ons pi r ac y c ha r g e. Pa r ag r aph4 o fthe a g r ee m en t i ncor pora ted Count Tw o, a copy o fwh i ch w as atta ch ed to the a g r ee m en t, R. 1 473 at1

- 2 ¶ 4 & E x. A , a nd Para gr aph 5 stat ed that“[ t] he defendant acknow l edges, unde r st an ds, a nd a g r ee s t ha t h e i s, i n f ac t, g ui l tyo fthe offense de scr ibed i n [ P]a ra gr aph 4, ” i d. a t 2 ¶ 5. At the change ofpl ea hear i ng, in re sponse to questi ons posed bythe c o ur t, Te l l o s pec i fi ca l l y a cknow l edg ed th athe had read the al l ega ti ons ofCount Tw o and w i shed to ple ad gui l ty to the s am e. R. 18 24 at 6. I t i s cl ear, then, tha t T el l o w as ple adinggui l ty to preci sel y the sa m e r acke tee ring c onspi ra cy that w as al l ege d i n the i nd i ctm ent. There i s no r i sk ofd ou bl e j eopar dy, whi ch is o ne o fthe p r i mar y e v i l s o fc o ns t r uc t i v e a men dm ent (because th e al ter ati on o fthe charg ed offense l eave s the defendant exposed t o a s econ d prose cuti on f or th e c rim e a s s et f o r t h in t h e in d ict m en t). See, e . g. , U nited St at e s v. Fo l ks , 236 F. 3d 384, 39 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. The i nd i ct-24 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933

m ent a dequ ate l y deta i l ed t he co nspir acy’ s t i m e fra m e, pla ce, sco pe, part i ci pants, and i ntended categorie s o f ra cket eer i ng acti vi ti es, and the ple a a gr eem ent incor pora te d all of th os e s am e d et ails
. A n d T ello ca n n otcla im to ha v e b e e n c a ught b y s ur pr i s e b y the o ffe ns e t o wh i ch he was pl ea di ngg ui l ty( a se co nd ev il p o se d b y a c o nst ru c tiv e a m en d m en t, s e eU ni t e d S t a tes v. Pe nal oza , 64 8 F
. 3d 53 9, 5 46 (7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ) , a s th e co nt o ur s o fthe o ffen se wer e co m m i tt ed to wri ting i n anagreem en t tha tb o th he a nd h i s c o un s e l r e v i e we d a nd s i g ne d. W e a cknowle dge thatP ar ag raph 5 ofthe ple a a gr eem ent s et f or th m or e than Tel l o’ s s i m ple adm i ssi on t o the a l l ega ti ons setf or th i n Count Tw o ofthe in d ict m ent. I t went on to sta te that “[ t]h e d efendant furtheradm i ts that he co nspir ed w i th o therLati n K in g m em ber s t o com m it at le a s t tw o qu ali fying crim inal act[s] in furth eran c e o f th e c rim in al e n te rp ris e” an d th at “[t ]h e fo ll owing cri m i nal act s were acts i n further an ce o fthat conspi ra cy. ” R. 14 73 at 2 ¶ 5. Par agr aph 5 the n descr ibed two c r i m es i n whi chTe l l o ha d pa r ti ci pat ed, i nc l udi ng the Ju l y 2 002 att ack on three m em ber s o fthe M exi can Pos se gang ( R en e and Da niel Carm ona and Ped ro Gaona ) a l o ngwi th the Oc t o b e r2 0 0 4 s e xu a l a s s a ul tu po n a fe m ale m in or . Id. at2- 3 ¶ 5. Bu t thi s doe s no t s i gnalthatTel l o w as ple adinggui l ty to a di ffer en t o r ex p an d ed o ffen se . F o r a l l o fthe r ea so ns w e hav e di scusse d, i t was unnecess ar y for T el l o to adm i t that he parti ci pated i n two orm or e pr edi cate act s o fr a c k e t e e r i n g, o r t o a n y o v e r ta c ti n fu r th e r a n c e o fthe ch a r g e d r a c k e t e e r i n gc o n s p i r a c y, i n o r d e r t o b e f o u ndN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 25 gui l ty on Count Tw o. N onet h el ess , any cri m i nal act s that Tel l o com m i tte d i n further ance o fthe cons pir acy w oul d m att erf orse ntenci ng p u rp oses, as tho se acts woul d c o ns ti tu te r el ev an t co nduc t un d er the S en te nc i ng G uide l i ne s. U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1. 3( a)
. Thi s ex pl ains why th e dist ri ct c ourtco nd uct ed an e vi denti ar y hea ring to deter m i ne Tel l o’ s c u lp abi l i ty f ora thi rd act, the J une 200 2 at te m pte d m urd er o fJ o se Es pi no za . I t al so e xpl ains w hy , as ant icip ated i n th e plea agreem en t, T ell o’s offen se level w as a d ju sted up w ard based on th e inj ury i nfl i cted o n Rene C ar m ona i n the J uly20 02 M exi can P os se inc id en t. W e n ot e fin ally th at th is c as e is rea d ily d is t i n gu ish ab le f r o m U ni t ed S ta tes v. B rad ley, 381 F.3d 641 ( 7th Cir. 2004), upo n whi chTe l l o r el i es . The defen dan t i n B rad leywas charg ed w i th usi ng or car ry i ng a fi re ar m in fur ther ance o fa dr ugt r a ffi c k i ngo ff ense, i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 2 4 ( c )
. C o n d u c tc o ns t i t ut i n ga d r u gt r a ffi c k i n gc r i me i s a n el em ent o fa sect i on 9 24( c) o ffense, and w here , as i n B rad ley, the i ndi ct m en t spe ci fi es a p ar ti cul ardr ug tr affi ck ing cr i m e, the g o ve r nm en t m us t pr o ve tha t th e defe nd ant use d orcar ri ed a fi rear m in further ance o f th a t p ar tic u lar cr im e. 38 1 F .3d at64 6. T h e p ar tie s in Brad l ey f ai l ed to a ppr ec i at e tha t po i nt, a nd dur i ngthe d e fe n d a n t ’ s p l e a c o l l o q u y th e g o v e r n me n t i d e n t i fi e d a m ar ij ua na - r el at ed o ffen se tha t was di ffer en t f r o m the coca i ne bas e o ffense ci ted i n the i nd i ctm en t, ther eby m od ifyi ng tha t e l em ent o fthe charg ed offense. In contr astto B rad ley, th e c om m iss ion of a p ar tic u lar p re d ica te a ctwas no t ane ss ential e l emento fthe r ac k et ee r i ng consp i r a c y o ffe ns e wi th whi c h Te l l o wa s c ha r g e d. Co ns e-26 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 q u en tly , th e p lea ag re em e n t ’s a c kn ow led gm en t o f p re d ica te a ct s di ffer en t f r o m tho se c i te d i n the i nd ictm ent di d no t m o di fy the o ffen se i n a ny mate r i alway . The ess enti alel em ents to w hi ch Tell o agr eed r em ai ned the s am e fro m the i nd i ctm ent t o th e plea ag re em ent. Those e lem ents ar e o utl i ned i n parag ra phs 15, 17, and 18 o fthe i ndi ct m en t ab o ve . The s ex ua l a ss au l t char g e i nc l u d e d i n th e p l e a a g r e e me n tw a s r e l e v a n tc o n d u c tc o mm i tte d i n addition t o thos e e l em ents and w as not necessa ry to co n vic t T ello u n d er se c tio n 19 62 (d ). Revi ew i ng Tel l o’ s ar gum ent i n l i ght of the proo fn eces sary to su stain T ell o’s conv iction un d er section 19 62(d ), we c o nc l ude tha t no pl ain e r r o r o cc ur r ed d ur i ngthe ch an g e o fpl ea pr oce ss . Bo ththe i ndi ct m en t an d the p lea ag re em en t c on ta in ed su fficie n t in for m at ion for T ello to kno wi ng l y and v o l unt ar i l ypl ea d g ui l ty, a nd the tw o d oc um ents w er e whol l y c onsi ste nt with re spect to th e e ss en tia l elem en ts of ra c ke te er in g c on sp ira c y. T ello ad m itted to the e l em ents ofRI CO co nspir acy. Consequentl y, any dispar i ty betwe en t h e pr edi cate act s o f r ac k et ee ring a tt r ibut ed to hi m i n Co untOne o fthe i ndict m ent a nd the acts i n furtherance ofthe conspi ra cy that he acknow l ed ge d i n the ple a a gr eem ent di d not i m pact the va l i dity o fTel l o’ s guil ty ple a a nd co nvi cti on. N one oftho se acts were ess enti alto Tel l o’ s guil t.

B
. H ill T h is is H ill’s s ec on d ap p ea l an d , l ike th e firs t, it foc u s e s o n h is s en te n c e. H ill con te n d s t h at aft er th is co ur t i n the pr i o r a ppea l s us ta i ne d hi s ch al l en g e to theN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 27

H il l add it io n a lly conte nd s thatthe rec ord d oes not s up port 3 i mpos i t i o n o fth e a c c e s s o r y e n h a n c e me n t
. B u tb e c a u s e we c onc l ude tha t the c our ts houl d notha ve c ons i der ed thi s e nhancem en t, w e need not add res s the m eri ts ofthe enhancem ent in this cas e. fi nd ing tha t he w as a career offend er, the d is t rict court wa s p r e s e nt e d wi th a s t r a i ght f o r wa r d t a s ko n r e m an d: to re cal cul ate hi s o ffense leve l witho ut the car eer offender desi gnati on, to deter m i ne wh etherhi s r eckl ess endanger m ent convi cti on w as proper l y consi dere d as part ofthe RI CO co nsp ira c y to w hi ch he pl eaded gui l ty i n thi s ca se ra therthan as a di st in ct o ffense that w as part ofhi s pri orcr i m i n al h istor y, and then t o re - sente nce hi m o nc e tho s e t wo ma t t e r s we r e a ddr e s s e d. I ns t e a d, the c ourtal l owed the gov er nm ent t o propos e a n al tog etherdiffer ent e nhancem ent forbeing an acces sory after the fact to a ri val gang m em ber’s m urd er, seeU .S.S.G . § 2X 3 .1 , n ot w ith st an d in g t h e fa c t t h at th is enha nc ementha d no t be enr ai se d pr ev i o us l y . Tha t en hancem ent, wh i ch the dist ri ct c ou rtf ound app l i cabl e, boo ste d H i l l ’ s o ffense l eve l near l y t o w h at it had been when H il l was fi r stde emed a c ar ee r o ffen der
. Hi l l c o ntends thatthe gov er nm ent had waived any re l i ance o n thi s e nhancem en t b y not propos i ng i t s oo ner, and that the di str i ct c ourtexce eded the s c ope o fo ur m andate b y e nter t a i ningthe g o v e r nme nt ’ s a r g ume nto n r e man d. W e a gr ee. 3 N o th i ngs to o d i n the w ay o fthe g o ve r nm en t r ai sing the a cces sor y- after
- the-fa ct e nhancem ent a t the ti m e o f H i l l ’ s fi r sts en te nc i ng . Hi l l ’ s co nne ct i o n wi ththe g un28 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 used to m urder the r i valga ng m em berwas known at th at tim e; in d ee d , th e rele va n t fac ts w er e rec i t e d in H ill’s p lea ag re em en t. R . 1 13 0 a t 3 -4 (n ot in g, inte r alia , that the r evo l verused i n m urder ofr i val ga n g m em ber was a mo n g f o u r fi r e a r ms d i s c o v e r e d i n th e s e a r c h o ft he reside nc e tha t H il l us ed , that H il l w as kn ow n to store fi re ar m s use d by fel l ow gan g m em ber s a nd adm i tte d as m uch, and that H i l l acknow l edged k now i ng tha t the o therthree fir ear m s were prese nt)
. A s we have note d, the p l e a a g r e e men ta l s o s t a t e d tha tthe p a r t i e s had “di sc us se d a l l o fthe se nt en cingg ui del i ne s pr o vi si o ns w hi ch they bel i eve to be appli cabl e to the offen se . . . , ” i d. at 6 ¶ 12. N ow he re i n th e plea a g r eem en t, how ever, was the r e any ment i o n tha t th e ac ce ss o r y g ui del i ne m i g hta ppl y t o Hi l l b as ed o n th e p rese nc e o fthe re vol veri n hi s r esi dence. The go ver nm ent c onte nd s that there was no nee d to ra i se the acces sor y gui del i ne at the ti m e of H ill’s ori gi nal sente nci ng, bec ause the dis tri ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on that H illwas a c ar eero ffender re nd er ed other enhancem en ts irr el ev an t. Ye t, i t was no t a f o r eg o ne c o nc l usi on that the co urt w oul d find thatH i l l was a c ar eer offender: t h e plea ag re em ent a cknowle dged onl y that H ill m ightqual i fy as a c areero ffender, i d. a t 8 ¶ 18 , a nd H il l him self argu ed to the cou rt

— c o r r e c t l y, a s i ttur ned o ut

— th at h i s c r im in al h ist or y d id n otm ee t t h e c rit er ia f o r c ar ee r - o ffen ders ta tu s, R. 123 5 at5

- 7; R. 1 25 0. The gover nm en t su r ely a nt i ci pat ed th e po ss ibi l i tytha t th e di s t r i c tc o ur tmi g hta g r e e wi th Hi l l tha tthe c a r e er offe n d er gu id elin e d id n otap p l y , a s w ell as th e p os sib il i ty that eve n i f the dist ri ct cour t deem ed H i ll aN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 29

car eero ffender, thi s co urt m i ght s ee thi ng s di ffer entl y, as i tu l t i ma t e l y d i d i n th e p r i o r a p p e a l
. T h e g o v e r nm en t thu s h a d e v e r y r e a s o n to r a i s e o the r p o t e nt i a l l y a pp lica b le e n h an c em en ts to H ill’s offe n se lev el. I n short, ther e was no l egi ti m ate r eas on f orthe gov er nm en t to i g no r e th e ac ce ss o r y - afte r - th e- f ac t g ui del i ne a tthe ti me o fHi l l ’ s fi r s ts e nt e nc i ng, a nd i t s f a i l ur e t o do so re sul ted i n a waiv er o fi ts ar gum ents as to that gui del i ne . T he p r i o r a pp e a l f o c us e d s o l e l y o n Hi l l ’ s c r i minal hi sto ry( Ch apter4 ofthe Gu i del i nes) and i n part i cul ar on wh etherhe qual ified a s a car eero ffender und er sect i on 4 B 1. 1. Our r eso l uti on o fthati ssue i n no way im p li cate d the u nd erlyi ng offen se con d uc t (Ch ap ter 2 of the G uid eli ne s), w h ich of course inc lud ed H il l’ s sta tus a s a n acce sso ryafterthe f act und erse cti on 2X 3.1. W hen w e r em anded the ca se so that Hil l co uld be r esente nced, we i nstr ucted the court to consi der whether Hi l l ’ s c o n v i c t i o n f o r r e c k l e s s e n d a n g e r me n te n c o mpassed co nd uct that sh oul d be vi ew ed as i n further ance ofthe conspi ra cy to w hi ch he pl ed gui l ty in thi s ca se ra therthan as an as p ec t ofhi s pri orcr i m i nal hi sto ry ; but we othe rwis e l eft the Guidel i nes c al cul ati ons und i stu rb e d. No thing i n o ur de c i s i o n i nv i t e d the pa r t i e s o r th e c ou rtto st ar t fro m sc ra tc h an d ex p lore en tir ely n ew en h an c em en ts
. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Park er, 1 01 F. 3d 527, 52 8 (7t h Ci r. 19 96) ( “I fthe opi ni on i denti fi es a di sc r et e, pa r ti cul are r r o r tha t ca n be c orre ct ed o n r emand w i thout the ne ed f ora re deter m i nati on o fo th er i ssues , th e d istri ct cou rt i s li m ited to correc ting th at error. ”). W hen i t per m i tte d the g ove rnm ent t o m ake a Gui del i ne s ar g um en t th ati t ha d l o ngs i nc e wai ve d, the30 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 di st r i ctc o ur t th er efo r e ex ceeded the s co pe o fo ur r emand, a s we l i k ewi se c o nc l ude d i n U ni t e d St at e s v. Wi l s on , 1 3 1 F
. 3 d 12 5 0 , 1 2 5 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 )
. T h e r e , we had o r der ed th atW i l so n b e r es en te nc ed upo n c o ncl ud i ng tha t the d ist ri ct c ourthad ar ri ved atan er ro ne ou s o ffense l eve l as a re sul t o fi ts deci si on notto g r o up to g ethe r hi s m ai l fr au d a nd mone y l au nde r i ng offe n se s. S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Wi l s on , 98 F. 3d 281 (7th C ir. 1996 )
. On re m and, the c ourtgr ouped the t w o se ts o f convi cti ons as i nstr ucted, but i t a l so accepte d the g over nm ent’ s a rgum ent, m ade f or the fi rs t t i m e o n re m and, that the m ai l fra ud s h ou ld be tr eat ed as r el ev an t con d uc t vis-à- vis the m one y l au nde r i ng pu rs uant to U
. S. S. G. § 1 B1. 3( a) ( 2)
. Th e re l evantco nd uct d eterm ination h ad the effect of increas ing W il son ’s offense l eve l and sent enci ng r ange; and th e sentence th atthe c o ur t i m po se d o n r emand ex ce ede d the o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c e b y t we n t y mo n th s . Wi l s o n a p p e a l e d a seco nd ti m e, and w e c oncl ud ed that the c ourthad er re d w hen i t incre ase d W i l son’ s o ffense l eve l bas ed on a n a r g ume nttha tthe gov e r nme nth a d l o ngs i nc e wa i v e d: Th a t o ffe n s e l e v e l wa s e r r o n e o u s . . . b e c a us e th e di st r i ctc o urt exce ede d the s co pe o fo urr emand in r e a ss es sin g t h e q u es tio n of re lev an t c on d u c t. In adv an ce o fo urfi r stde ci si o n in thi s ca se , the governm en t h ad n ev er as se rt ed th at W ilso n ’s a c ts of m ail f ra ud qual i fi ed as re l evantco nd u c t fo r pu rpos es of hi s m oney l aund er i ng convi cti on und er sect i on 1 B1. 3. The go ver nm ent, i n other w or ds, never sugge ste d th at th e m ailfrau d and m one y l au nd erin g w ere re l ate d as r el evantco nd uct ei therunde r subsect i onN os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 31 (a)( 1) o r (a)(2 ) of th e re lev an t c on d u c t g u id elin e. In th e absen ce of su c h a n argu m en t, th e d istri ct cou rt ac c ep te d t h e P SR ’s re c om m en d at ion th at th e m ail f ra ud di d not qual i fy as r el evantco nd uct with re spect to the m oneyl aund er i ng. A nd havi ng neve r adv o ca te d a r el ev an t co nduc t fi ndi ngb el o w, the gov er nm ent di d not cross- appeal o n that i ssue once W ilso n ch alle n ge d th e g ro u p in g d et er m in at io n in th is c ou rt . Th e g ov er n m en t a lso n ev er su gg es te d in briefing the fir st ap p eal that a d ecision in W il son ’s f avo r on the gr oupingiss ue would se rv e t o re open th e m at te r o fr el ev an t co nduc t. Fo r a l l i nt en ts a nd pu rpos es, then, the re l evantco nd uct i ssue had be enfi na l l y de te r m i ne d b y the t i m e thi s co ur t co nsid er ed W i l s on ’s firs t a p p ea l, an d n ot h in g w e c ou ld sayabo ut gr oupingwould se rv e t o re open thati ssue. 13 1 F .3d at12 53 -54 ; s ee als o Unit e d S t at e s v. Su t t on , 58 2 F.3 d 7 8 1 , 78 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); cf. U nite d State s v. White, 40 6 F. 3d 827, 83 2- 33 & n. 2 ( 7t h C ir. 20 05) ( w here di str i ct cour t found at fi rs t s entenci ng tha t defendant had obstr ucted j usti ce b ut di d not a pp l y obstr ucti on e nhancem en t be ca us e unde r l y i ngc o nduct o ve r l appe d wi thc o nd uc t sup p orting m urd er cross-reference , district cou rt w as f re e t o i m pose enhancem ent o n re m and o nce m u r d er cr os s-r efe re n c e w as h eld err on eo u s o n ap p ea l, as enhancem ent was ba sed on exi sting r eco rd and go ver nm ent was nota ff or ded o pp or tuni ty to prese nt new ev i den ce )
. W ha t we s ai d i n Wi l s on i s j ust as tr u e h er e: H avi ng f ail ed to ar gue in the fi rs t instance thatH i l l was an acces sory after th e fact to a ri val gang m em ber’s m urd er , th at s u b je c t w as clo se d w h en w e o rd er ed th at H ill b e r e s e nt e nc e d.32 N os. 10

- 2677& 10

- 2933 The dis tr i ct c ourtther efor e e rr ed i n apply i ng the acce ss o r y g ui del i ne o n r emand. H i l l m us t ag ain be r es en tence d, thi s t i m e without the se cti on 2 X3. 1 e nhancem ent.

III. W e A FFIRM Tel l o’ s co nvicti on. N o pla i n er ro r occur re d w i th r espectto the ple a a gr eem en t’ s i denti fi cati on o f predi cate act s o fr acke tee ring tha t w er e d i ffer ent fro m the a cts cite d i n the i nd i ctm ent. W e V ACATE H il l’ s s e nt e nc e a nd R EMA ND f o r rese nt en cingb as ed o n o ur c o nc l us i o n tha tthe di s t r i c tc o urt exc e e de d the s c o pe ofourr e man d in pe r mi t t i ngthe g o v e r nme ntt o make an ar gum ent foran e nhancem ent t o the o ffen se l eve l that i t had waiv ed by not ra i si ng pre vi ousl y.

7- 18- 12