Source: https://m.openjurist.org/609/f2d/298
Timestamp: 2020-02-19 20:53:30
Document Index: 44719482

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 1962', '§ 2113', '§ 1961', '§ 3568', '§ 4082', '§ 922', '§ 1202', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 922', '§ 1202', '§ 3575']

609 F. 2d 298 - United States v. Aleman
609 F2d 298 United States v. Aleman
609 F.2d 298
Harry ALEMAN and Leonard Foresta, Defendants-Appellants.
We previously touched on this problem in United States v. Cappetto,502 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 420 U.S. 925, 95 S.Ct. 1121, 43 L.Ed.2d 395 (1975), a civil proceeding under § 1962(b), (c), and (d). We held that in addition to a congressional intention to protect legitimate business against infiltration by racketeers, the statute covered other patterns of racketeering activities in or affecting commerce, in that case a gambling business. 502 F.2d at 1358. Later in United States v. Nerone, 563 F.2d 836, 850 (7th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951, 98 S.Ct. 1577, 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978), we recognized our prior holding in Cappetto, but Nerone was a case in which the government undertook to establish infiltration. Defendant would distinguish those cases on the basis that in each the gambling involved might conceivably be considered as businesses, although illegal, but it is absurd, defendant argues, to consider the activities in the present case as constituting a "home robbery business." However, defendants forthrightly bring to our attention a contrary view expressed in United States v. Elliott, 571 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 953, 99 S.Ct. 349, 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978), in which that court held that a group of people who engaged in arson, murder and truck hijackings constituted an "enterprise" under § 1962. That was not a new interpretation of § 1962 by the Fifth Circuit. In United States v. Hawes, 529 F.2d 472, 479 (5th Cir. 1976), the court held that the term "enterprise" had a very broad meaning and was not restricted to legitimate business enterprises. The D.C., Second, and Ninth Circuits have expressed similar views. United States v. Swiderski, 193 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 593 F.2d 1246 (D.C.Cir.1978), Cert. denied, 441 U.S. 933, 99 S.Ct. 2055, 2056, 60 L.Ed.2d 662 (1979); United States v. Altese, 542 F.2d 104 (2d Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1039, 97 S.Ct. 736, 50 L.Ed.2d 750 (1977); United States v. Rone, 598 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Campanale, 518 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050, 96 S.Ct. 777, 46 L.Ed.2d 638 (1976). Also we have recently held in United States v. Grzywacz, 603 F.2d 682 (7th Cir. 1979), Judge Swygert dissenting, that public entities and individuals, in that case a police department, may be considered enterprises for RICO purposes through which racketeering is conducted. Only the Sixth Circuit has held that RICO was restricted in application to legitimate business enterprises. United States v. Sutton, 605 F.2d 260 (6th Cir. Sept. 4, 1979). We align ourselves with Judge Engel's view in dissent that RICO is not limited to include only legitimate business. Id. at 273.
As the Fifth Circuit explained in Elliott, 571 F.2d 880, part of the dispute as to whether RICO includes illegitimate businesses derives from dicta in Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975). Elliott, 571 F.2d at 879 n.17. In Iannelli in footnote 19 the Supreme Court commented that RICO seeks to prevent infiltration of legitimate business by racketeers, but we see no indication in that comment that was intended as a signal that RICO coverage should be given a more limited interpretation than the statute on its face suggests.
In Elliott, 571 F.2d at 898, the court analogized the illegal enterprise there under consideration to a large business conglomerate with a chairman of the board overseeing the operations of separate corporate departments. Perhaps such an impressive organization was the ambition of the defendants in the present case. At the time it was closed down, however, at least so far as the evidence reveals, it could only be regarded as a small business. Aleman was the proprietor. The business office was the Survivor's Club. Their investment in equipment was negligible as the cars they used were stolen. The payroll was limited. Perhaps given more time, their business would have successfully grown into a conglomerate at the expense of their victims, but fortunately for the public the defendants were put out of business.
The defendants also contend that if § 1962(c) is read to include illegitimate business it should be deemed void for vagueness. That the phrase " any enterprise" is broad in scope, does not mean that because it includes both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises instead of only one or the other that it is therefore vague. As we have noted, "enterprise" is broadly defined by the statute to include among other things a "group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity."11 Being broad in scope is not synonymous with being vague. Our view on this issue is shared by others.12
The defendants also argue that RICO violates their rights to equal protection because of the discretion permitted the prosecutor to charge a RICO offense or to select only an underlying crime. Prosecutorial discretion does not itself constitute a violation of equal protection unless it is abused for reasons of race, religion or other arbitrary and improper classification which is not claimed to exist in this case. United States v. Neary, 552 F.2d 1184, 1195 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 864, 98 S.Ct. 197, 54 L.Ed.2d 139 (1977). We would expect, however, that government prosecutorial policy will reserve use of this statute for racketeers, leaving local crimes to local authorities. The vagueness argument of defendants is broader than possible abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The statute is vague, defendants claim, because it is impossible to tell which offenses may fall within the ambit of § 1962. Because would-be racketeers may have some alleged difficulty in determining in advance whether their contemplated activities may violate the statute does not mean that the courts must adopt their interpretation of the statute. The statute is clear enough on its face to serve the purposes of both the public and the racketeer. The defendants also argue that unless restricted only to organized crime the statute denies equal protection. We see no denial of equal protection to racketeers who strive to emulate the achievements of their brothers in organized crime.
Finally, defendants claim RICO is repugnant to the Eighth Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishment because, as the government views the statute, it may be applied to other than members of organized crime. We find no merit in that contention. Although a RICO offender may be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years the sentence is not mandatory. A § 1962 offender may be sentenced to less than 20 years, fined or given probation. If a defendant qualifies as a racketeer able to accomplish the same illegal goals as organized crime he qualifies for the punishment. The court's sentencing discretion applicable to all offenders alike does not run afoul of the Constitution.
The defendants argue that the indictment is multiplicious, charging defendants with the same offense in various counts, because of the interrelationship between Counts I and II and Count III. Count I charged a RICO conspiracy incorporating by reference Count III as one of several overt acts. Count II alleged a substantive RICO offense and likewise incorporated Count III as an additional racketeering act. Count III charged the defendants with the substantive crime of interstate transportation of stolen property. The sentences for each defendant on Count III were made consecutive to the sentences on Counts I and II. In addition, Foresta was convicted by a state court of the same Indiana robbery. Defendants rely primarily on Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322, 77 S.Ct. 403, 1 L.Ed.2d 370 (1957), in which the Court held that the entry into a bank with intent to rob was not intended as a separate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 from the consummated robbery and therefore the intended crime merged into the completed crime.
We are considering a different statutory scheme. Congress made its intent clear that RICO did not supersede any other law, federal or state, imposing penalties in addition to those provided by RICO.13 Congress stated its intent was to provide enhanced sanctions.14 RICO § 1961(5) illustrates this congressional intent. It requires that to constitute an offense that two predicate acts must occur within 10 years, but from that 10 year period is excluded "any period of imprisonment." It is implicit in that provision that even though a defendant has already served time for the first predicate offense that first offense may still be used as an element in establishing a RICO "pattern."
We see no multiplicity, as each count, although related, required in part different proof. Merely incorporating by reference a substantive count into a conspiracy count does not constitute multiplicity. United States v. Bartemio, 547 F.2d 341, 345 (7th Cir. 1974). The Count I conspiracy is obviously distinct from the Count III charge of interstate transportation of the fruits of the burglary. Count II requiring proof of the conduct of the enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity is in contrast to the proof required to sustain Count III, and lacks the necessity of proof of conspiracy.
Defendants also claim that there were three prejudicial trial errors. First, defendants complain about a question asked on cross-examination of George Marcantonio, a defense witness called by Aleman. Marcantonio testified he would not believe Almeida, the government's witness, under oath. Marcantonio claimed to have only the slightest of social relationship with Aleman. The government then asked, "Isn't it correct, Mr. Marcantonio, that you are afraid of Mr. Aleman?" There was a defense objection and a side bar conference at which Aleman's counsel moved for a mistrial which was denied. The trial judge carefully explored the circumstances surrounding the government's question. Government counsel explained that the basis for the question was available government evidence that Marcantonio had been involved in the robbery of an armored truck with Aleman who had viciously beaten up Marcantonio thus causing Marcantonio to fear Aleman. It was explained that Almeida was also the primary witness about that episode and that the government possessed Almeida's written statement. Certain law enforcement officers, the government claimed could supply circumstantial evidence about the affair. Government counsel further explained that not knowing Marcantonio would be called as a witness, he was not prepared at that moment during the side bar conference to say whether or not the government would pursue the matter and offer the evidence to show Marcantonio's bias. Marcantonio, outside the presence of the jury, denied the government's allegations about his relationship with Aleman. The matter was not pursued further before the jury. The record does not reveal that Marcantonio answered the question before the jury although some counsel believe he did. If he did respond, it appears the answer would have been that he was not afraid of Aleman. Defense counsel failed to follow up their original objection before the jury as they sought no ruling upon it. Nor was there any defense request to strike the question and answer, if there was an answer, or to instruct the jury to disregard it. At the close of all the evidence the defendants did not renew any objection or again move for mistrial after the government had failed to offer evidence in rebuttal regarding Marcantonio's relationship with Aleman.
That the possible bias of a witness which may affect credibility is a proper and critical area of exploration by cross-examination is beyond question. Defendants now argue that the error was that the government did not follow the question up with evidence to demonstrate a basis for the question. However, the record suggests that during trial, defense counsel did not want any rebuttal government evidence offered on that issue and had previously sought exclusion of all evidence about fear of Aleman. The government's rebuttal evidence cannot be perceived as being beneficial to Aleman's case. Although at side bar government counsel cautiously mentioned the possibility always existing that the witness when actually called might testify to a different version than recorded in his prior statement, the good faith of the government was not seriously questioned at trial. Defense counsel helped avoid that possible rebuttal evidence damaging to him during trial, but now seeks to have it the other way.
In the circumstances of this case, we see no reversible error in the incomplete impeachment. The question was not pursued by the government. The defendants failed to seek available remedies from the trial court to strike the question or give the jury a cautioning instruction. This case is in sharp contrast to those cases in which a question without any factual basis had been used before a jury merely because of the prejudicial suggestion emanating from the question itself. United States v. Harris, 542 F.2d 1283, 1308 (7th Cir. 1976), Cert. denied, 430 U.S. 934, 97 S.Ct. 1558, 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977). In any event this one unanswered question about fear of the defendant put to a witness in an attempt to impeach a government witness could only be lost in many days of trial in which substantial evidence of guns, threats, personal abuse, and home robberies abounded. The possible fear of the witness was not again suggested in any way to the jury. We cannot agree with defendants that the case against Aleman was weak and that therefore the question assumed some unusual critical significance. Sufficiency of the evidence was not an issue on appeal.
It is next claimed that it was error to admit into evidence the small book of names and telephone numbers seized by officers at Harder's house in the room occupied by Miroff and Powers as house guests. Inventory lists of the stolen Indianapolis property, partly in the handwriting of Miroff and partly in the handwriting of Powers, were found along with this book. The Indianapolis stolen property was also part of their luggage. Defendants first argue that the foundation laid to permit the book's admission into evidence was inadequate. We believe the book's connections with Miroff were sufficient. A handwriting expert testified that part of the book, though not the relevant part, was in the handwriting of Miroff. On one page of the book three telephone numbers were found next to the name "Harry," circumstantially Aleman. Independent evidence established that two of the numbers were those of a restaurant and a club which Aleman frequented. Telephone company records which went back to 1976 revealed that the third phone number had been registered to a Ruth Aleman on Concord in Melrose Park. There was testimony that defendant Aleman lived on Concord in Melrose Park in 1972 and 1973. The book tended to corroborate the enterprise relationship between Aleman and Miroff testified to by Almeida. This establishes an adequate foundation to find the evidence relevant. Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402. Any weakness in that regard was a matter of weight not relevancy.
Defendants further contend that the book should not be admitted to corroborate this enterprise relationship because the book is hearsay when used to establish this relationship. We disagree. The relevant listing in the book asserted that "Harry" could be reached at one of three numbers. The listing had value without regard to the veracity of that assertion. The listing was not offered for its truth, but to show Miroff's acquaintance with Aleman. Independent evidence connected Miroff with Aleman based on the book. The book was not relied on to show "Harry's" phone number, only to indicate that Miroff had knowledge of someone named "Harry" at the relevant time. The additional evidence eliminated the hearsay dangers. The book was properly admitted. McCormick on Evidence P 249, at 592 (2d ed. 1976); Note, 44 Mich.L.Rev. 480, 481 (1945).
Aleman also questions the admission into evidence of the testimony of an investigator for the Chicago Police Department that on a particular occasion he kept Aleman under observation. The officer testified that, about two weeks after the Indianapolis robbery, while having lunch, he saw Harder and his house guests, Miroff and Powers, together in a restaurant. A few minutes later he saw Harder leave that restaurant with Aleman and go to another restaurant where they remained for about an hour. When the officer was asked what he did on that occasion, he replied that he "kept Aleman under observation," and followed him west on a particular street. No objection was made to the question. Defendants claim that the answer engendered prejudicial error because it suggested Aleman was someone the police had reason to surveil. The question and answer cannot constitute plain error. The testimony only completed what the officer had observed on one occasion between the principals. Even had a defense objection been timely made at trial instead of on appeal, there would have been no error in overruling it.
Separate issues are raised as to Foresta by the claim that he was sentenced four times for the same offense. He received a state sentence for the Indianapolis robbery. That same robbery was also a factor in Count I, the conspiracy; Count II, the substantive racketeering violation; and also in Count III, the transportation of the stolen Indiana property. The trial court made no comment about whether the federal sentence would be concurrent or consecutive with the state sentence. Foresta argues that the government should be estopped from bringing the prosecution, or that in the alternative the case should be remanded for resentencing with credit to be allowed for the state sentence. He also complains that federal authorities cooperated with the Indiana prosecutors. We do not see that the Indiana conviction precludes the federal prosecution. There is no double jeopardy. Not only are different sovereignties involved, but the crimes are separate and distinct. The Indianapolis robbery constituted only one of numerous overt acts in the conspiracy charge and one of four racketeering acts alleged in Count II. Count III was not a prosecution for the Indianapolis robbery, but for transporting the loot from that robbery in interstate commerce.
The dual sovereignty doctrine of Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 194, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959), and Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959), remains the law; state and federal prosecutions based on the same facts are not constitutionally prohibited. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 316-22, 98 S.Ct. 1079, 55 L.Ed.2d 303 (1978). The doctrine simply means that the same single act of a defendant may constitute more than one offense as he may have violated both federal and state laws for which he may be prosecuted. The dual sovereignty doctrine is subject to the qualification, however, that a state prosecution cannot be used merely as a cover and a tool of federal authorities. Bartkus,359 U.S. at 123-24, 79 S.Ct. 676. That an FBI Special Agent testified at Foresta's Indiana trial and a federal prosecutor was listed as a possible state witness does not alone turn the state trial into a sham. Law enforcement cooperation between state and federal authorities is a welcome innovation. Instead of cooperation Foresta views it as federal "orchestration" of state authorities to produce a robbery conviction upon which to develop a RICO indictment. We do not find federal "orchestration" in the record. Indiana authorities were merely performing their own public duty in prosecuting Foresta for burglarizing the home of a local doctor. State authorities need not defer the performance of their own local obligations because of the possibility that the federal authorities might in the future pursue the interstate aspects of the crime.
Nor is there any need to return Foresta for resentencing. Under18 U.S.C. § 3568, a federal sentence commences to run when the defendant is received at a place of confinement for service of the sentence. Under that section the computation of sentence credits is computed by the Attorney General, not the sentencing judge. The sentencing judge has no power to make a federal sentence concurrent with a prior state sentence. Under 18 U.S.C. § 4082, it is the Attorney General who designates the place of confinement. The sentencing judge may only recommend that the Attorney General designate a state institution as a place for service of the federal sentence. If the recommendation is followed, then the state and federal sentences in effect become concurrent. United States v. Allen, 588 F.2d 183, 185 (5th Cir. 1979). Such a recommendation is entirely discretionary with the sentencing judge. That there is a factual relationship between the state and federal cases does not require that the trial judge's discretion be exercised in any particular way. No recommendation was made in this case.
Aleman and Foresta also raise a severance issue. Prior to trial Aleman and Foresta15 sought severance of Counts VIII and IX which charged Foresta with possessing and transporting a firearm in commerce after having been previously convicted of robbery by assault, a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)16 and 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1)17. The motion was denied. Foresta's prior felony conviction thus became necessarily an element of the government's proof. Defendants claim the introduction of the admission of evidence of that conviction constituted error, relying on United States v. Phillips, 401 F.2d 301 (7th Cir. 1968), and United States v. Ostrowsky, 501 F.2d 318 (7th Cir. 1974). In those cases, in which evidence of prior crime was admitted for other purposes, it was a matter of the trial judges' discretion to admit the evidence or to limit its scope. In the present case the prior conviction is an element of the crime. Its admission was not a matter of the trial court's discretion. No details about Foresta's prior robbery by assault were explored. Also, no reference was made during trial before the jury that Foresta's prior conviction of robbery was in fact "robbery by assault." The jury was instructed to give separate consideration to each defendant and to each count. The jury obviously did this as Aleman was acquitted on two firearms charges. The criminal record involved was not Aleman's and he was not shown to have been involved in any way in Foresta's other robbery. The jury was further charged that Foresta's prior conviction should not in any way be considered as proof of the fact that he had committed any of the offenses charged in this indictment. Defendants doubt the efficacy of those limiting instructions. Under our jury system, however, it is fundamental that we reasonably trust juries to make factual determinations in accordance with the court's instructions. United States v. Pacente, 503 F.2d 543, 548 (7th Cir.) (en banc), Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1048, 95 S.Ct. 623, 42 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974). The circumstances of this case do not suggest that the jury disregarded the court's instructions.
Severance could have avoided that issue, but we find no clear abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying the motion under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Papia, 560 F.2d 827, 840 (7th Cir. 1977). Foresta's gun as alleged in Counts VIII and IX was also involved in both Counts I and II. Its transportation was alleged as an overt act in the conspiracy, Count I, and it was evidence of an act of racketeering activity in Count II. There was no necessity in this case to go back over much of the same gun evidence in separate trials. There has been no "strong showing of prejudice" as to either defendant. United States v. Kopel, 552 F.2d 1265, 1272 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 434 U.S. 970, 98 S.Ct. 520, 54 L.Ed.2d 459 (1977). Other reviewing courts lend support to our view that severance is unnecessary in somewhat similar circumstances. United States v. Roe, 495 F.2d 600, 604 (10th Cir.), Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 858, 95 S.Ct. 107, 42 L.Ed.2d 92 (1974); United States v. Lee, 428 F.2d 917, 920 (6th Cir. 1970), Cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1017, 92 S.Ct. 679, 30 L.Ed.2d 665 (1972); United States v. Abshire, 471 F.2d 116, 118-19 (5th Cir. 1972).
The final issue concerns Aleman's contention that his sentence, a total of 30 years on all counts, was excessive. He claims the record contains no explanation for the sentence imposed. None is required, but some explanation does appear. The reasons for the sentence are apparent and fully justify the exercise of the court's sentencing discretion. We will not interfere. United States v. Hansen, 583 F.2d 325, 334 (7th Cir.), Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 912, 99 S.Ct. 283, 58 L.Ed.2d 259 (1978). The trial judge said he considered home invasions to be a most serious offense. Aleman was shown to be the head of this interstate enterprise of armed home robbery in which victims were threatened and abused. Aleman also had one prior conviction for which he had received probation. To compare sentences in other cases is ordinarily fruitless and it is in this case. Lesser sentences imposed on others in certain other prior cases apparently were inadequate to serve as deterrents to Aleman and Foresta. Nor does Aleman profit by comparing his sentence with the sentence Foresta received. Although Foresta had a serious prior conviction and was convicted on several additional counts, Aleman was the obvious proprietor of their enterprise, now no longer in business.18
In United States v. Grzywacz, 603 F.2d 682, 690 (7th Cir. 1979), I set forth my basic view on the issue of the extension of the term "enterprise" as used in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) beyond commercial entities. The same question is before us here and, thus, I see no reason to repeat that view. Additional comment is necessary, however, because the cases involve "enterprises" that are different in nature.
In Grzywacz this court was concerned with a city police department, concededly a legitimate entity, albeit not a commercial or business type of organization. Here we are confronted with a so-called "pattern" of criminal activity the robbing of homes. To urge, as the Government did in Grzywacz, that a police department is an "enterprise" within the meaning of the statute, although farfetched and impermissible by any reasonable interpretation of the statute, has some semblance of logic to it. Here, to maintain, as the majority does, that the pattern of criminal activity engaged in by Aleman and his associates is an "enterprise" within the meaning of the statute is to turn logic on its head.
In order to reach the majority's conclusion that such an enterprise exists, we are required to assume that the defendants were infiltrating their own unlawful enterprise through a "pattern of racketeering activity." To my way of thinking, this assumption is absurd. To infiltrate an enterprise, that is, "to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs (section 1962(c))," the enterprise must preexist before it is infiltrated by racketeering. Under the facts and the majority's reasoning based on those facts, the enterprise and the racketeering are one and the same. The racketeering defines the enterprise and the enterprise comprises the racketeering.
The majority's faulty reasoning is illustrated by its statement that, "the Act is not restricted to members of organized crime." This misses the point. The point is: What meaning did Congress intend to give to the term "enterprise"? Following the above quoted sentence, the majority then says: "Although the stated purpose of the Organized Crime Act, of which RICO is a part, is to eradicate organized crime, the statute itself does not require proof that the defendant or the enterprise are connected with organized crime." Not only is this statement a non sequitur, but it again misses the point on which the case turns. Even taken as true, it does not relate to the question before us.
I believe that the recent Sixth Circuit opinion in United States v. Sutton, 605 F.2d 260 (6th Cir. 1979), correctly decides this very issue. The facts are analogous, and the Government's contentions are the same. Judge Merritt has offered, with admirable clarity, an analysis that is irrefutable.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1976)
The pertinent RICO statutory sections are as follows:
Aleman was sentenced to imprisonment for two concurrent terms of 20 years and one consecutive 10-year term for a total of 30 years
Foresta was sentenced to imprisonment for concurrent terms of 20 years and a consecutive term of 10 years for a total of 30 years together with additional concurrent terms of 10 years and 2 years
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report on Organized Crime Control Act of 1969, S.Rep.No.91-617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
H.R.Rep.No.91-1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., Reprinted in (1970) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 4007, 4033
18 U.S.C. § 1961(3)
18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)
18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)
18 U.S.C. § 1961(5)
United States v. Hawes, 529 F.2d 472, 479 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Campanale, 518 F.2d 352, 364 (9th Cir. 1975), Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050, 96 S.Ct. 777, 46 L.Ed.2d 638 (1976); United States v. Cappetto, 502 F.2d 1351, 1357-58 (7th Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 420 U.S. 925, 95 S.Ct. 1121, 43 L.Ed.2d 395 (1975); United States v. Parness, 503 F.2d 430, 441-42 (2d Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1105, 95 S.Ct. 775, 42 L.Ed.2d 801 (1975)
Sec. 904(b) of Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 947 (1970)
84 Stat. 923 (1970)
The government raises some question about the manner in which Foresta moved for severance as at trial he joined in Aleman's motion which was not tailored to his own claims as they appear on appeal, but we need not consider those circumstances
The pertinent part of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) provides as follows:
(1) . . . who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
The pertinent part of 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a) provides as follows:
. . . who receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce, after the date of enactment of this Act, any firearm shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
In its brief the government brings to our attention that it filed Petition for Dangerous Special Offender Sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3575 and offered to prove that Aleman had participated in five murders in recent years. The petition was denied, and not made part of the record. Those allegations are totally unsupported in the record before us and are therefore totally ignored