Opinion ID: 2708559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vicente Garcia

Text: In April 2008, Vicente Garcia (whom we will call Vicente to differentiate him from co-defendant Luis Garcia) became the Supreme Regional Inca, the gang’s second-highestranking member. The jury convicted him on all counts. He was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment for possession 22 Nos. 11-3179 et al. with intent to distribute a controlled substance; 240 months each for count 1 (RICO conspiracy), counts 2 and 9 (commission of violent crime in aid of racketeering), count 10 (extortion), and count 14 (possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance); and 60 months each for counts 11 and 13 (possession with intent to distribute). The court ordered these sentences to run concurrently. In addition, it imposed a consecutive sentence of 120 months on count 3 (use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence). All told, Vicente received a total sentence of 480 months in prison. Vicente raises eight arguments in his brief: (1) the “halfPinkerton” instruction violated his rights; (2) his convictions for violent crimes in aid of racketeering violated his Double Jeopardy rights; (3) his mandatory minimum sentence for use of a firearm violated the Supreme Court’s rule in Alleyne; (4) his conviction on count 9 for a violent crime in aid of racketeering should be set aside for insufficient evidence; (5) the evidence on his extortion conviction was insufficient; (6) the court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial after the jury saw some of the defendants being escorted by U.S. marshals; (7) the court applied the wrong standard of proof at sentencing; and (8) the court improperly applied the sentencing guidelines. Our discussion of arguments 7 (standard of proof at sentencing) and 8 (application of the guidelines) in Zambrano’s appeal suffices to show why we reject them here as well. The complaint about the “half-Pinkerton” instruction also has no merit. Like Zambrano’s, Vicente’s conviction did not depend on Pinkerton liability. Instead, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Vicente was directly responsible for several predicate acts. Even if the Pinkerton instruction was erNos. 11-3179 et al. 23 roneous (for the sake of argument only), any such error was harmless. We can also reject argument 2 (Double Jeopardy) for similar reasons to those we gave in our discussion of Zambrano’s appeal, although Vicente’s point is slightly different. Whereas Zambrano argued that he could not be convicted for both a RICO conspiracy and the underlying predicate acts, Vicente asserts that it was unconstitutional to convict him of assault with a dangerous weapon in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3)) and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), when the crime of violence is the same assault with a dangerous weapon. As we noted before, however, Congress may provide for multiple punishments for the same act without violating the Double Jeopardy clause if the statute demonstrates the clear intent to do so, and we have held that Congress intended to impose such “stacked” punishments when it passed § 924(c). See United States v. Seawood, 172 F.3d 986, 989 (7th Cir. 1999). Indeed, § 924(c)(1) explicitly prescribes that a sentence under that statute must be imposed “in addition to” the punishment for the underlying crime of violence. Assault in furtherance of racketeering enterprise is just the sort of “crime of violence” that Congress wanted to include within § 924(c)’s ambit, and so Vicente’s argument fails. Mandatory Minimum and Alleyne. Vicente received a 10year sentence for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). That statute prescribes that a defendant who has discharged the firearm must be given a prison term of not less than ten years. See id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Vicente argues that the district court erred 24 Nos. 11-3179 et al. insofar as it believed that the 10-year mandatory minimum applied, because he believes that Alleyne requires a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he discharged the firearm, and that there was no such finding. That might be a good argument if the record supported it, but it does not. The same underlying conduct gave rise to counts 2 and 3 in the indictment. For count 2, the court instructed the jury as follows: For the purposes of Count 2, the indictment charges that defendant Vicente Garcia know- ingly and intentionally committed an assault with a dangerous weapon upon Victim A in vi- olation of the laws of the State of Illinois. … Under Illinois law a person commits the of- fense … when he … by means of discharging a firearm, knowingly and intentionally causes in- jury to another person. Because the jury convicted Vicente on count 2, it necessarily found beyond a reasonable doubt that he “discharged” a firearm. The district court therefore did not run afoul of the Alleyne rule when it applied the mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years to him. Sufficiency of Evidence: Assault in Aid of Racketeering. Vicente has little to add to Zambrano’s arguments on this point. He asserts that personal animus, not a desire to maintain or improve status in the gang, lay behind the handsmashings of Salazar and Enriquez. That argument is no better than the one that Zambrano advanced. Vicente also disputes Zambrano’s contention that he (Vicente) was the one who ordered the smashings; the responsible person, he says, Nos. 11-3179 et al. 25 was Zambrano. Perhaps a jury could have assigned all the blame to Zambrano, but this jury did not, and we have no reason to second-guess its determination. Other Arguments. Each of Vicente’s other arguments tracks points made by various co-defendants. (The court is grateful for counsel’s efforts to coordinate in this way.) He contends that the evidence of extortion was insufficient, but we explained in the section on Zambrano why there was enough in the record to support the jury’s finding in this respect. We discuss the incident in which some jurors allegedly saw several of the defendants (perhaps including Vicente) being escorted by the U.S. marshals from the holding cell into the courtroom when we turn to Guzman’s appeal. In brief, we find no reversible error in the court’s decision not to order a mistrial on this basis.