Opinion ID: 2831116
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: RICO Conspiracy (Count One)

Text: Given that evidentiary backdrop, we first address the sufficiency of the evidence as to the Defendants' RICO conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, makes it unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Section 1962(d) also prohibits any person from conspiring to violate § 1962(c). The major difference between a violation of § 1962(c) itself and a violation of § 1962(d) based on § 1962(c) is the - 18 - additional required element that the defendant knowingly joined a conspiracy to violate § 1962(c). United States v. Shifman, 124 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1997) (citation and alterations omitted). Thus, [f]or a defendant to be found guilty of conspiring to violate RICO, the government must prove (1) the existence of an enterprise affecting interstate [or foreign] commerce, (2) that the defendant knowingly joined the conspiracy to participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, (3) that the defendant participated in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, and (4) that the defendant did so through a pattern of racketeering activity by agreeing to commit, or in fact committing, two or more predicate offenses. Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Here, the Defendants argue that the evidence was not sufficient for elements one, three, and four.11 For the reasons discussed below, we find no merit to this claim. 11It's not clear from the Defendants' briefing which RICO elements they actually grieve, but we interpret the substance of their arguments to concern elements one, three, and four. To the extent the Defendants did intend to dispute the second element (knowledge), [a]ll that is necessary to prove this element of the RICO conspiracy is to prove that the defendant agreed with one or more co-conspirators to participate in the conspiracy. United States v. Shifman, 124 F.3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Our overall discussion of the RICO count makes abundantly clear why this argument would have failed in any event. - 19 - Enterprise Affecting Foreign Commerce To start off, the Defendants' argument that the government presented insufficient evidence that La ONU was a RICO enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce carries no water. RICO defines an enterprise as any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Thus, an enterprise need only be a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a criminal course of conduct, and need not be a legitimate business or a form of organization sanctioned by state law. United States v. Nascimento, 491 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Still, even though such an association in fact suffices to satisfy the enterprise requirement, see 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), the law is clear that the government nonetheless must prove that the enterprise existed in some coherent and cohesive form. Nascimento, 491 F.3d at 32. It follows that the enterprise must have been an 'ongoing organization' operating as a 'continuous unit.' Id. (citation omitted). Put simply, a RICO enterprise possesses some goal or purpose more pervasive and more enduring than the instant gratification that can accrue from the successful completion of each particular criminal act. Id. - 20 - Here, the government presented more than sufficient evidence that La ONU operated as an enterprise. Even if the Defendants are correct that La ONU started off as a truce between the different housing-project gangs, those groups concertedly combined their efforts for a specific, ongoing purpose -- in the beginning, to sell drugs, and later, to also stomp out the competition (specifically, La Rompe). This super-gang, if you will, although a merging of smaller gangs that still operated their existing drug points, became ongoing and identifiable by its name; the organization even had a special hand gesture (i.e., gang sign). See United States v. Patrick, 248 F.3d 11, 19 (1st Cir. 2001) (finding that an enterprise existed where the gang was ongoing and identifiable by name and gang sign). La ONU also had rules and structure. Truant members and enemies were killed, but not before leaders first signed off on the killings. Before committing acts of violence on behalf of the organization, members had to get permission from La ONU leaders, who hosted meetings to discuss shootouts before they were carried out. See id. (taking into account that the enterprise had 'sessions' where important decisions were made, including decisions about taking action against rival drug dealers). Therefore, while the Defendants urge that the La ONU organization did not have all the traditional indicia of a typical street gang (e.g., use of colors, initiation rites, and a formal - 21 - hierarchy), as the Supreme Court has pointed out, RICO's enumeration of included enterprises is obviously broad, encompassing 'any . . . group of individuals associated in fact.' Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 944 (2009) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)). The term 'any' ensures that the definition has a wide reach, and the very concept of an association in fact is expansive. Id. (citation omitted). As we fleshed out above, La ONU exhibited group cohesion over time; its membership pooled and shared resources; the individuals involved had a sense of belonging and self-identified as [La ONU] members; and the group had a wellhoned set of goals. Nascimento, 491 F.3d at 33. We deem that more than enough for a RICO enterprise. See id. Further, we also easily find that La ONU engaged in or conducted activities that affected foreign commerce.12 See 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). We have said before that an enterprise's effect on commerce need only be de minimis, given that the commerce requirement is only jurisdictional. United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 35 (1st Cir. 2002). Gutierrez-Santana testified that during his time as a La ONU member from about 2009 until his arrest in 2011, he imported kilos of heroin from the Dominican Republic to provide to La ONU drug points (and in particular to Ramírez- 12 The Defendants argued this point in their briefing, but this was one of many arguments the government ignored. Even without help from the government, though, we conclude that the commerce element was easily satisfied. - 22 - Rivera). This activity is sufficient to satisfy RICO's foreign commerce requirement. Participation RICO also requires the government to prove that the Defendants participated in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs. According to the Supreme Court, that means participation in the operation or management of the criminal enterprise. Shifman, 124 F.3d at 35-36 (quoting Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 184-85 (1993)). It suffices for this element that a defendant be plainly integral to carrying out the enterprise's activities. Id. at 36 (internal quotation marks omitted). Despite the Defendants' attempts to dilute the rather damning evidence of their active leadership roles in La ONU, we find that this element was also clearly satisfied. As we discussed above, the testimony reflected that all three Defendants owned drug points in La ONU-controlled projects. Of course, drug-point ownership was a vital component to the La ONU conspiracy, given that the whole point of the enterprise was to maintain control of as many drug points as possible to earn more money. On these facts alone, we conclude the jury had abundant reason to find that the Defendants were integral parts of the enterprise's activities. Pattern of Racketeering Finally, the Defendants contend that there was insufficient evidence that they participated in the conspiracy by - 23 - agreeing to commit (or actually committing) a pattern of racketeering activity. Not so. To satisfy the pattern element for a RICO conspiracy, the statute requires that a defendant agreed with one or more others that two predicate offenses be committed. Shifman, 124 F.3d at 35 (internal citation and alteration omitted). RICO specifically enumerates what counts as a predicate offense, and includes (among many other crimes) murder and drug dealing. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Aiding and abetting one of the activities listed in § 1961(1) as racketeering activities makes one punishable as a principal and amounts to engaging in that racketeering activity. Shifman, 124 F.3d at 36 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 2). RICO also requires that the defendant commit the two racketeering acts within 10 years of one another. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). Additionally, the Supreme Court has said that the acts must be related and 'amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.' Shifman, 124 F.3d at 36 (quoting H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1989)). We conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that each of the Defendants participated in La ONU by agreeing to engage in a pattern of racketeering. First, despite the Defendants' representation to the contrary, there was witness testimony that all the Defendants were part of the 2010 planning - 24 - meeting for Pequeque's murder.13 The jury heard testimony that during the planning meeting, which Cruz-Ramos and Laureano-Salgado attended and Ramírez-Rivera participated by speakerphone, the leaders decided that Pequeque would be killed by a particular hitman with $10,000 of La ONU funds, as well as a La ONU-provided pistol and car. The jury could easily infer, given the body of testimony they heard, that the reason for Pequeque's murder was to enforce La ONU's ongoing mandate that La Rompe members be executed, so that La ONU could expand its territory.14 Second, as we noted above, the record reflected evidence that each Defendant, as drug point owners, engaged in drug trafficking for La ONU-controlled drug points between 2007 and 2011. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) (listing dealing in a controlled substance as a RICO predicate). The Defendants do not seriously The Defendants do not (nor could they successfully) argue 13 that planning a murder is not a RICO predicate. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). The Defendants argue that the witnesses' testimony about 14 the Defendants' attendance at the meeting was inconsistent, and at best questionable, as none of the witnesses were present during Pequeque's shooting. But Figueroa-Cancel unequivocally testified that he was at the planning meeting and relayed the details of the planned hit. The jury also heard that Pequeque was, in fact, killed by the hitman after the meeting, and that the Defendants were part of the team to extract the injured hitman from the scene. Even assuming the other witnesses' testimony was inconsistent with this account (or even if Figueroa-Cancel's other testimony conflicted with this account), [w]hen there are two conflicting versions of a single event, it is for the jury to decide which version, if either, should be given credence. United States v. Williams, 717 F.3d 35, 40 n.2 (1st Cir. 2013). - 25 - dispute this point either, arguing only that their drug-selling at the individual drug points did not contribute to La ONU's objectives because the drugs were sold only for the benefit of the individual gangs at each housing project. We have already rejected the Defendants' notion that selling at the individual housing projects did not contribute to La ONU's mission to take over the drug market, but even if the Defendants' sales did not directly financially benefit La ONU, their claim would still fail. It suffices that the defendant was able to commit the predicate acts by means of, by consequence of, by reason of, by the agency of, or by the instrumentality of his association with the enterprise. Marino, 277 F.3d at 27. [T]he defendant need not have channeled the proceeds of the racketeering activity into the enterprise, and [i]t is unnecessary for the pattern of racketeering to have benefitted the enterprise in any way. Id. at 28. Particularly given the ensuing war with La Rompe over the drug points, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the Defendants' drug-trafficking success (i.e., their ability to survive) was attributable to their alliance with, allegiance to, and high-ranking status in La ONU. All in all, the RICO conviction stands.