Opinion ID: 3169938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: All three Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against them— Massimino and Canalichio as to Count 1, charging a RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and Staino as to Count 25, charging conspiracy to collect extensions of credit by extortionate means under 18 U.S.C. § 894. Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is “highly deferential.” United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 430 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc). The well-established standard is whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318–19 (1979). “[T]he verdict must be upheld as long as it does not ‘fall below the threshold of bare rationality.’” Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d at 431 (quoting Coleman v. Johnson, 132 S. Ct. 2060, 2065 (2012)). 13 To establish a RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the government must prove the following three elements: (1) two or more persons agreed to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of an enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt; (2) the defendant was a party to or a member of the agreement; and (3) the defendant joined the agreement, knowing of its objective to conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt, and intending to join with at least one other co-conspirator to achieve that objective. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997). The government need not prove that the defendant agreed to commit, or personally committed, two acts of racketeering activity, and instead must establish only that the defendant agreed that a pattern of racketeering activity or a collection of unlawful debt would be accomplished through co-conspirators. See id. at 65–66. Massimino’s argument on this point is that even if the Philadelphia LCN itself constituted a far-reaching RICO conspiracy, no evidence existed that he knowingly joined it. He contends that he was never the underboss of the Philadelphia LCN family, but at most “just another made guy,” Massimino Br. at 15, whose affiliation with the LCN, without more, was not a criminal act, see United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1146 (3d Cir. 1990). He further suggests that any illegal loansharking he engaged in was a personal enterprise unrelated to the LCN. 14 Proof of Massimino’s specific rank within the LCN was not an element of the Government’s RICO case against him. Even so, contrary to Massimino’s assertions, the Government introduced ample evidence that Massimino was more than just a rank-andfile member of the Philadelphia LCN. Two cooperating witnesses testified regarding their belief that he served as the Family’s underboss—testimony bolstered by a recorded phone conversation in which Massimino agreed with another person’s characterization of him as “the underboss.” Supp. App. 5603a. And the Government’s witnesses, whom the jury was entitled to credit, established that Massimino’s loansharking and extortion occurred as part of the broader LCN enterprise. Jack Buscemi, for instance, testified that Massimino repeatedly exacted a “street tax” from him in connection with an LCN protection racket, and further evidence permitted the conclusion that Massimino later directed the continued collection of the “tax” from Buscemi with the assistance of another LCN made member even while incarcerated. Michael Orlando, too, testified that he was summoned to see Massimino in connection with an unpaid LCN debt to Canalichio, and that he was fearful of LCN retribution if he were to leave the debt unsatisfied. On this basis a rational juror could have inferred that Massimino knowingly joined the LCN conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity and collection of unlawful debt.3 3 Massimino also argues that under United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995), the jury was required to find the commission of two specific racketeering acts by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Gaudin, the Court recognized a criminal defendant’s 15 Canalichio, too, contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for RICO conspiracy. Time and again, however, the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, demonstrates Canalichio’s knowing participation in the business of the Philadelphia LCN, both in the context of issuing loans and accepting bets, and threatening violence to those who failed to square their accounts. Thus, for largely the same reasons applicable to Massimino’s conviction, we reject Canalichio’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Staino’s conviction on Count 1, unlike Massimino’s and Canalichio’s, was the result of a guilty plea rather than a jury verdict, and accordingly, he does not challenge the sufficiency of the Government’s proof on that count. He does contend, however, that the Government’s proof was insufficient to support his conviction on Count 25, charging him with conspiracy to collect extensions of credit by extortionate means in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894(a)(1). The Government responds that when Staino pleaded guilty on Count 1, he explicitly conceded that this same conviction that he now challenges served “right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt of every element of the crime with which he is charged.” Id. at 522–23. But Gaudin does not warrant relief here. Commission of individual racketeering acts is not an element of RICO conspiracy, see Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65–66, and a jury may find a defendant guilty of such conspiracy even while returning a verdict of acquittal on separately charged individual acts of racketeering activity. See United States v. Yannotti, 541 F.3d 112, 128–29 (2nd Cir. 2008). Further, the District Court is obligated to make findings regarding “underlying racketeering activity” for purposes of sentencing, U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1, and such findings must be supported only by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Ciaverella, 716 F.3d 705, 735–36 (3d Cir. 2013). 16 as a valid factual predicate to support the RICO conviction. His attorney, too, represented that “we have agreed . . . that the two acts, the Counts 24 and 25 in the indictment that he was found guilty of would serve as a basis for the factual basis for the RICO conspiracy plea and the conviction. Everything else . . . is frosting on the cake.” App. 5461. We agree with the uncontroversial view of the Second Circuit that a defendant waives any appellate challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence when he pleads guilty to an offense. See United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513, 1528–29 (2d Cir. 1997). And where the defendant expressly concedes that one of the elements of the pleaded offense is itself satisfied by the fact of a prior conviction, as it was here, it follows that the defendant waives any later challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying that predicate conviction. Therefore, we conclude that Staino’s instant claim, which is tantamount to an assertion that his RICO plea did not have a factual basis, has been waived. In the alternative, we conclude that the Government introduced sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt on Count 25. 18 U.S.C. § 894 provides: (a) Whoever knowingly participates in any way, or conspires to do so, in the use of any extortionate means (1) to collect or attempt to collect any extension of credit, or (2) to punish any person for the nonrepayment thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both. (b) In any prosecution under this section, for the purpose of showing an implicit threat as a means of collection, evidence may be introduced tending to show that one or more 17 extensions of credit by the creditor were, to the knowledge of the person against whom the implicit threat was alleged to have been made, collected or attempted to be collected by extortionate means or that the nonrepayment thereof was punished by extortionate means. 18 U.S.C. § 894. “Extortionate means” is defined as “any means which involves the use, or an express or implicit threat of use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to the person, reputation, or property of any other person.” Id. § 891(7). Staino contends that here, any threats were made at the time of the extension of the loan, rather than during its collection, which is insufficient to satisfy § 894. See United States v. Lore, 4 F. Supp. 2d 352, 357 (D.N.J. 1998). We need not decide the correctness of Lore’s holding—a question we have not addressed in a precedential holding—because this case is distinguishable. Staino was convicted of conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect an extension of credit, rather than of the substantive offense itself. Regardless of whether Sebastiani repaid the relevant debts without himself falling into arrears or being threatened—an arguable point which we need not address—the Government’s evidence on the whole would allow a rational juror to conclude that Staino conspired with Ranieri and others to employ threats of violence not just in the extension of credit but also in the collection of debts. Accordingly, we will affirm Staino’s conviction on Count 25.