Opinion ID: 454502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1952

Text: 77 Defendants next argue that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the offense of interstate travel to promote an unlawful activity. The essential elements of a section 1952 violation are travel in interstate commerce, specific intent to promote, manage, establish, or carry on 'unlawful activity,' or to distribute the proceeds of unlawful activity, and knowing and willful commission of an act in furtherance of that intent subsequent to the act of travel. United States v. Cauble, 706 F.2d 1322, 1351 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 996, 79 L.Ed.2d 229 (1984). In its charge to the jury, the trial court defined unlawful activity as follows: The term 'unlawful activity' includes the distribution of marijuana or the possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it in violation of federal law. Record Vol. 15 at 1176. 78 On appeal, the defendants contend that the court erred in not instructing the jury that unlawful activity, as defined by statute, means a business enterprise. Defendants did not object to the court's charge at trial, but in fact specifically requested that the district judge strike the pattern jury instruction's definition of unlawful activity as meaning a business enterprise, and that the above quoted language be delivered to the jury instead. See Record Vol. 14 at 1036. Thus, this contention lacks merit. See United States v. Blankenship, 746 F.2d 233, 239-40 n. 2 (5th Cir.1984); Wolfe, 611 F.2d at 1154-55.