Opinion ID: 509290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The RICO Indictment

Text: 9 Relying on Bennett v. United States Trust Co., 770 F.2d 308, 315 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058, 106 S.Ct. 800, 88 L.Ed.2d 776 (1986), which held that under section 1962(c) a corporate entity may not be simultaneously the 'enterprise' and the 'person' who conducts the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, Weinberg challenges count 1 of the indictment on the ground that the alleged RICO enterprise was in fact Weinberg himself. The merits of this contention are not properly before us, however, for it constitutes a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the government's case and thus has been waived. 10 It is well settled that, in the absence of a court-approved reservation of issues for appeal, a plea of guilty waives all challenges to the prosecution except those relating to the court's jurisdiction to try the offense. E.g., Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879, 881 (2d Cir.1987); United States v. Sykes, 697 F.2d 87, 89 (2d Cir.1983). If the indictment alleges all of the statutory elements of a federal offense and the defendant's contention is that in fact certain of those elements are lacking, the challenge goes to the merits of the prosecution, not to the jurisdiction of the court .... Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d at 882. 11 Count 1 of the indictment described the alleged enterprise as follows: 12 The defendant SAMUEL WEINBERG's ownership, management, control and holding of mortgages upon these real properties were sufficiently extensive and organized so as to constitute, in effect, a business entity.... 13 .... 14 At all times relevant to this Indictment, ... Samuel Weinberg's Real Estate Business, also known as All Cash Realty, and also known as Queens Blvd. Realty, ... constituted an enterprise within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4). 15 The indictment alleged that the business entity employed the services of several people on a full-time or part-time basis. Thus, as the district court ruled, see 656 F.Supp. 1020, 1024 (1987), the indictment plainly alleged as a RICO enterprise a business entity that was distinct from Weinberg himself. Weinberg's contention that he was in fact the described enterprise is an argument that goes to the merits rather than to jurisdiction. There having been no reservation of the issue for appeal, the issue has been waived.