Opinion ID: 503414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellants Have Failed to Establish a Variance Between Proof and Indictment

Text: 42 To sustain a RICO conviction, as charged in this case, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an enterprise existed as charged in the indictment; that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; that the defendant was associated with the enterprise; and that the defendant knowingly participated, even indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering. See Martin-Trigona v. Smith, 712 F.2d 1421, 1426 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1983); 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c) (1982). Defendants Perholtz and Jackson contest the trial judge's ruling that the evidence is sufficient to establish the existence of a single racketeering enterprise as charged in the indictment. The defendants assert that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the government's position, reveals either two or three separate enterprises. Hence, it is urged that this alleged variance between indictment and proof requires reversal of the RICO convictions. 43 Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(4) (1982) provides that an  'enterprise' includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. We conclude infra at 362 that the enterprise is established by common purpose among the participants, organization, and continuity. The evidence here was sufficient for the jury to conclude that these elements were established with respect to a single enterprise. 44 The participants in the enterprise were either individuals who sought financial gain from the award of government contracts, or were corporations, controlled as a practical matter by those individuals, who were instrumental in executing the charged schemes. The goal of obtaining the proceeds of government contracts for computer services and equipment through the perversion of the bidding process motivated the members of the associational enterprise at all relevant times. See United States v. Lemm, 680 F.2d 1193, 1199 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1110, 103 S.Ct. 739, 74 L.Ed.2d 960 (1983). 45 The elements of continuity of structure and personnel were evident despite some changes in personnel between schemes, and despite the fact that every participant did not play an identical role in each scheme. See United States v. Tillett, 763 F.2d 628, 631-32 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Cagnina, 697 F.2d 915, 921-22 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 856, 104 S.Ct. 175, 78 L.Ed.2d 157 (1983); see also United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 223 (3d Cir.) (the continuity requirement does not mean that individuals cannot leave the group or that new members cannot join at a later time), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849, 104 S.Ct. 157, 78 L.Ed.2d 145 (1983). Perholtz exhibited a leadership role throughout the period that the enterprise was functioning, although his nominal position was that of a consultant. Jackson, both as a Postal Service official and as an executive of IBS, used his position to direct contracts to entities with which Perholtz was associated. Cf. United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647, 666 (8th Cir.) (appearance of disjunctive ventures and refusal of certain participants to cooperate with each other militates against finding of continuity of personnel), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1040, 103 S.Ct. 456, 74 L.Ed. 608 (1982), noted in Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1200. 46 The evidence revealed that Perholtz suggested to Gentile and Jackson that they wire the ATAP proposal. In his meeting with Essex officials, Perholtz's reference to Postal Service employees as my people strongly suggested that he might exercise substantial influence over the award of contracts. Perholtz was largely responsible for a memo sent over Gentile's signature which suggested that Essex be awarded a sole-source contract. In meetings attended by Jackson, among others, it was Perholtz who suggested using the proceeds of the Printer Systems contracts to pay Jackson and Gentile for their roles in the ATAP scheme. Perholtz stated to counsel for Printer Leasing that it was he who determined whether the firm would receive business from IBS. Perholtz also instructed Dillon as to how Fletcher and Jackson would be paid for their roles in the SBA project. Subsequently, when the government's investigation jeopardized the continuance of the enterprise's illegal activities, it was Perholtz who drafted the script for Dillon to memorize. 47 With regard to Jackson, the evidence demonstrated that he used his position at the Postal Service to direct the ATAP contract to Essex (with which Perholtz, through ATL, had contracted to be a consultant). For the SBA scheme, Jackson was hired by IBS at the suggestion of Fletcher, and later became project manager for development of the SBA data communications systems. 48 Perholtz became a consultant to IBS. Fake commissions from the Printer Systems subcontract on the SBA communications project were funnelled through Computer Consultants, another entity controlled by Perholtz, in order to pay Jackson and Gentile for their roles in the ATAP scheme. Jackson later returned to the Postal Service to assume a management role in the PRISM and FIRM projects, and in the STARS project, a later phase of the Payroll Redesign Project. In sum, the existence of a continuing core of personnel motivated by a common interest is sufficient to constitute the association-in-fact enterprise. See United States v. Errico, 635 F.2d 152, 156 (2d Cir.1980) (a group of bettors linked to a group of jockeys through the defendant constitute an enterprise where all were acting with the purpose of fixing horse races), cert denied, 453 U.S. 911, 101 S.Ct. 3142, 69 L.Ed.2d 994 (1981). 49 In light of the foregoing, we agree with the trial judge's statement that 50 [a] reasonable juror could conclude from the evidence that the members of the enterprise were all linked together by a network of contracts, transactions and pay-offs orchestrated and organized by defendant Perholtz with the knowing and willful participation and assistance of others. The interlocking nature of the schemes and the overlapping nature of the wrongdoing provides sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that this was a single enterprise that started with the alleged conspiracy of Perholtz, Jackson and Gentile and added or dropped members over time as the scheme became more complex and expansive. 51 We are also mindful of the jury's inquiry into the existence of the enterprise, and the deference to be accorded to the results of that inquiry. United States v. Hewes, 729 F.2d 1302, 1311 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1110, 105 S.Ct. 790, 83 L.Ed.2d 783 (1984); Riccobene, 709 F.2d at 222. Our task is to determine whether there is substantial evidence, viewed most favorably to the prosecution, to support the verdict. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2150, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). We need not parse the enterprise's numerous and wide-ranging activities in an effort to decide whether we subjectively consider those activities to be more properly consistent with a finding of one, two, or three distinct enterprises. 52 Even if appellants could establish a variance between proof and indictment, that variance must be prejudicial to warrant the reversal of their convictions. See Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 105-06, 99 S.Ct. 2190, 2193, 60 L.Ed.2d 743 (1979); Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82, 55 S.Ct. 629, 630, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935); United States v. Mangieri, 694 F.2d 1270, 1278 (D.C.Cir.1982). Prejudice arises in cases in which a defendant is deprived of notice of the charges against him, when he is inadequately protected against reprosecution, or when he is deprived of the right to be tried only on charges presented in an indictment returned by a grand jury. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 217, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1344 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226, 104 S.Ct. 2678, 81 L.Ed.2d 874 (1984); Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061, 1071-72 (D.C.Cir.1969). Prejudice has not been shown in this case, and we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the jury's decision and that there was no variance between proof and indictment.