2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-29-2010 

# U S A v . Gele a n M a r k

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 09-4742

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Ge le a n M a rk " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 23. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/23

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 0 9

- 4742

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. GELEAN MARK also known as Kerwin, Appellant
Appeal from the District Court of t he Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John ( Crim . No. 3

- 09

- cr - 00020

- 001 ) District Judge: Hon. Curtis T. Gomez , Chief Judge Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Monday, December 13 , 2010 Before: McKEE , Chief Circuit Judge , FUENTES and SMITH , Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 29, 2010 )

OPINION McKEE, Chief Judge

.2



### Gelean Mark appeals the district c ourt = s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment against him . For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm. Bec ause we write primarily for the parties, and because t he d istrict c ourt has set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not repeat them here

. Mark appeals the d istrict c ourt ’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment . He ar gues that the indictment viola tes the D ouble J eopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. A mend V. Mark incorrectly argues he has been charged with a Continuing Criminal Enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848 in this indictment. See Appellant ’s Br. at 15, 20. The indictment in this criminal case charges him with violati ng the Racketeer Influence d and Corrupt Organizations Act (“ RICO ”) , 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq
. See Jt. Appx. 151

- 157 (indictment)

. We have previously held that “[t] he language and legislative history of RICO indicates little doubt that Congress, in enacting RICO, sought to allow the separate prosecution and punishment of predicate offenses and a subsequent RICO offense. ” United States v. Grayson , 795 F.2d 278, 282 ( 3d. Cir. 1986)

. Therefore, “ successive prosecutions for a RICO offense and its underlying predicate offenses are not inconsistent

w ith the D ouble J eopardy clause.” Id. at 283. Accordingly, we affirm the district court = s orders substantially for the reasons set for in t he district court = s Memorandum and Opinion without further elaboration.