Opinion ID: 809736
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Separate Conspiracies

Text: Ciresi argues that the district court should have drawn a hard line between the supermarket bribe and the mill bribe because they were separate conspiracies and he only partook in the former. To determine whether a set of criminal activities constitutes a single conspiracy, we generally look to three factors: (1) the existence of a common goal, (2) overlap among the activities' participants, and (3) interdependence among the participants. See United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109, 117 (1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Sánchez-Badillo, 540 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir. 2008). None of these factors is conclusive standing alone; instead, [w]e look to the totality of the evidence to see -10- if it supports a finding of a single conspiracy. United States v. Soto-Beniquez, 356 F.3d 1, 19 (1st Cir. 2003). A general scheme may exist notwithstanding variations in personnel and their roles over time. United States v. Shea, 211 F.3d 658, 665 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Bello-Perez, 977 F.2d 664, 668 (1st Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). These factors all point toward the existence of a single conspiracy. Broadly construed, see Dellosantos, 649 F.3d at 117, the bribes in this case shared a common goal: extorting clients of Ciresi who had submitted rezoning applications to the Town Council. The second factor, overlap among the participants, is satisfied by the pervasive involvement of a single core conspirator, or hub character. Id. (quoting United States v. Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d 411, 422 (1st Cir. 1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Zambarano played such a role here - he participated in both bribes, shuttled information back and forth among the participants, and facilitated the activities of the various conspirators.4 His consistent involvement strongly supports the existence of overlap between the two schemes. 4 Ciresi himself was also arguably part of the conspiracy's hub. Due to his representation of the parties seeking to bribe the councilmen, he had relationships to and crucial information about all the relevant players. With Zambarano's aid, he used these connections to link the conspirators with one another and suggested useful means of effectuating their common goals. Ciresi and Zambarano can therefore be seen as joint members of the hub. See Newton, 326 F.3d at 255 n.2 (noting that individual or group of individuals may comprise hub of single, illegal enterprise). -11- The third element, interdependence, addresses “whether the activities of one aspect of the scheme are necessary or advantageous to the success of another aspect of the scheme.” Id. (citations omitted) (quoting Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d at 422). Each individual must think the aspects of the venture interdependent, and each defendant's state of mind, and not his mere participation in some branch of the venture, is key. United States v. Portela, 167 F.3d 687, 695 (1st Cir. 1999). Here, each of the participants understood the bribes' success to hinge on the others' cooperation. For example, each of the three councilmen knew the others' votes were potentially necessary for the sevenmember Town Council to approve the rezoning applications. Hence, all of Zambarano's statements about Ciresi fell within the course of a conspiracy of which he was a member.