Opinion ID: 779372
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Edgewater Hotel Acts

Text: 16 The district court found that the alleged acts involving the Edgewater Hotel were not relevant conduct for the purpose of determining Tocco's Count 1 RICO conspiracy base offense level because they were not, as to [Tocco], reasonably foreseeable acts in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy. J.A. at 240. We hold that the district court clearly erred in this finding. In our opinion regarding the government's appeal of the district court's forfeiture decisions, we explained that the `shall forfeit' language of [18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)] mandates that a district court assess forfeiture against the defendant when the facts support a finding of a sufficient nexus between the property to be forfeited and the RICO violation. Corrado III, 227 F.3d at 552. 10 We then held that: 17 it was clear error for the district court to deny forfeiture against Jack Tocco and [Anthony] Giacalone, jointly and severally, for the profits that the members of the enterprise shared from the sale of the Edgewater Hotel. The continuing activities were related to the illegal purposes of the conspiracy charged, and Giacalone's and [Paul] Corrado's personal involvement confirms that the Cosa Nostra was involved in obtaining these illegal proceeds. 18 Id. at 556. Therefore, in a prior opinion, we have held that Tocco directly or indirectly benefitted from the Edgewater Hotel racketeering activities and that these activities were taken in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy for which Tocco was convicted. 19 Under the law of the case doctrine, generally we may not reconsider determinations made by this court at a prior stage of the litigation. See Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 276 F.3d 876, 879 (6th Cir.2002). The government's forfeiture action was based upon Tocco's conviction, and we previously held that the criminal forfeitures sought in this case constitute a part of the defendants' sentences.... Corrado III, 227 F.3d at 551. We are thus bound in this appeal by the holdings we made both in Tocco's previous direct appeal and in the appeal involving Tocco's and his codefendants' forfeiture. Because we previously held that the district court clearly erred in denying forfeiture against Tocco for the Edgewater Hotel activities, we believe that we must now hold that the district court also clearly erred in concluding that the Edgewater Hotel activities were not reasonably foreseeable acts in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy. Therefore, the district court also erred in not including the Edgewater Hotel activities as relevant conduct for the purpose of calculating Tocco's Count 1 RICO conspiracy base offense level. 20 We instruct the district court on remand to include the Edgewater Hotel activities as an underlying offense in calculating Tocco's Count 1 RICO conspiracy base offense level.