UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D-22 RONALD HATMAKER,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 06-20465

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

OPINION ADDRESSING RELEVANT CONDUCT FOR THE PURPOSE OF

CALCULATING BASE OFFENSE LEVEL FOR COUNT 2 RICO CONSPIRACY TO

WHICH DEFENDANT HATMAKER PLEADED GUILTY 

On March 25, 2010, Defendant Hatmaker pleaded guilty to Count Two of the Second

Superseding Indictment in this criminal matter alleging a conspiracy to participate in the

affairs of an interstate enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Under

the signed Rule 11 agreement, the parties agreed to disagree concerning the applicable

statutory maximum and sentencing guidelines on Count Two. This matter is now before

the Court in connection with Defendant Hatmaker’s sentencing, and the Court has reviewed

the briefs filed by Defendant Hatmaker [Doc. No. 1732] and the government [Doc. No.

1737] concerning the relevant conduct the Court should consider when calculating the base

offense level for the RICO conspiracy count to which Defendant Hatmaker pleaded guilty.

The Court adopts here that portion of its January 14, 2011 Opinion addressing

relevant conduct disputes in Co-Defendant Aref Nagi’s Case [Doc. No. 1723] discussing

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 2407, PageID.17396 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 4
2

the applicable burdens of proof, legal principles, and relevant facts concerning the RICO

conspiracy charged in Count Two of the Second Superseding Indictment. It observes that

Defendant Hatmaker pleaded guilty to Count Two, conspiracy to violate RICO laws, 18

U.S.C. § 1963(d), and that Count Two specifically incorporated all of the racketeering acts

enumerated in Count One by charging that Defendant “conducted and participated, directly

and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, through a pattern of

racketeering activity, that is, through the commission of Racketeering Acts One through

Thirteen as set forth in Count One . . . .” (Second Superseding Indictment.) The Court

further observes, as it did in its earlier January 14, 2011 Opinion, that:

Relevant conduct includes, in pertinent part: (1) “all acts or omissions” that the

defendant “committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced,

procured, or willfully caused”; and (2) “all reasonably foreseeable acts and

omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,” that

occurred during, in preparation for, or in the course of attempting to avoid

detection or responsibility for the RICO conspiracy.”

United States v. Tocco, 306 F.3d 279, 286 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A)

& (B)).

In making its relevant conduct determination, the Court relies on Defendant

Hatmaker’s testimony at his guilty plea [Doc. No. 1368] where he admitted that he

personally committed Racketeering Act Three (Barton extortion) and knew of and condoned

Racketeering Acts Nine (Burton/Peters drug conspiracy after 2002) and Eleven (Nagi/Ball

Jr. drug conspiracy). It also relies on the evidence presented at Co-Defendant trials

showing that Defendant Hatmaker was a leader of the Highwaymen enterprise during a

time of significant criminal misconduct and was actively involved in the murder conspiracy

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 2407, PageID.17397 Filed 07/12/12 Page 2 of 4
3

of Doug Burnett. (See, e.g., Trial Tr. Vol. 12, C. Miller at 34-37; Trial Tr. Vol. 19, P.

McDonald at 38-39.) 

Defendant Hatmaker was the Detroit Chapter President from November 2005 until at

least early fall 2006. Multiple witnesses testified that the Detroit Chapter is the mother

chapter of the Highwaymen and that its President is the number two ranking official position

within the club. Chris Miller testified that it was Defendant Hatmaker who told members of

the Highwaymen to find the “rat” Doug Burnett and that Defendant Hatmaker met privately

with Co-Defendants Dad Moore and Joe Whiting to discuss the presence of snitches in the

club. Chris Miller also testified that Defendant Hatmaker personally confronted him and

asked him whether he was an informant and threatened that, if he was, he would end up

in a dumpster. (See Trial Tr. Vol. 12, C. Miller at 36, 38, 42-43, 49.) 

Considering Defendant Hatmaker’s testimony at his guilty plea [Doc. No. 1368] and

the above trial evidence, the conspiracy to murder Doug Burnett (Racketeering Act 12); the

Barton extortion (Racketeering Act 3), the Burton/Peters drug conspiracy (Racketeering Act

9), and the Nagi/Ball Jr. drug conspiracy (Racketeering Act 11) constitute relevant conduct

for purposes of calculating Defendant Hatmaker’s base offense level for the RICO

conspiracy to which he pleaded guilty. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: July 12, 2012

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 2407, PageID.17398 Filed 07/12/12 Page 3 of 4
4

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on July 12, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

 

Case 2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM ECF No. 2407, PageID.17399 Filed 07/12/12 Page 4 of 4