Opinion ID: 503414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Instructions on Enterprise Distinct from Pattern

Text: 82 Appellants argue that the district court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that the enterprise must be separate from the pattern of racketeering activity. As appellants apparently did not raise this claim below, we will not reverse unless the error is plain. See, e.g., United States v. DeBango, 780 F.2d 81, 84 (D.C.Cir.1986); United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1343 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226, 104 S.Ct. 2678, 81 L.Ed.2d 874 (1984). As the record is ambiguous on whether appellants made this claim to the district court, see United States v. Perholtz, 657 F.Supp. 603 (D.D.C.1986), J.A. at 103, we emphasize that we would reject appellants' argument even if they did adequately preserve it. 83 Appellants primarily rely on United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981), which held that RICO encompasses both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises. One of the reasons given by the appellate court that reached the opposite conclusion was that inclusion of illegitimate enterprises would eviscerate the distinction between the enterprise and the pattern of racketeering. The Supreme Court rejected this argument: 84 In order to secure a conviction under RICO, the Government must prove both the existence of an enterprise and the connected pattern of racketeering activity. The enterprise is an entity, for present purposes a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. The pattern of racketeering activity is, on the other hand, a series of criminal acts as defined by the statute. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(1) (1976 ed., Supp. III). The former is proved by evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit. The latter is proved by evidence of the requisite number of acts of racketeering committed by the participants in the enterprise. While the proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce, proof of one does not necessarily establish the other. The enterprise is not the pattern of racketeering activity; it is an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages. 85 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 2528-29 (emphasis added). As we read this passage, the government is required to prove that the associates are bound together by some form of organization so that they function as a continuing unit, and thus constitute an enterprise. Although organization is not necessarily established by proof of a pattern of racketeering activity, the existence of the enterprise may be inferred from proof of the pattern. 86 The enterprise is established by (1) a common purpose among the participants, (2) organization, and (3) continuity. The second element--organization or structure--is the most difficult to show. Appellants urge us to adopt the view of some circuits that the structure must be proven by evidence other than that of the pattern of racketeering: 87 [An association-in-fact] encompass[es] only an association having an ascertainable structure which exists for the purpose of maintaining operations directed toward an economic goal that has an existence that can be defined apart from the commission of the predicate acts constituting the pattern of racketeering activity. 88 United States v. Anderson, 626 F.2d 1358, 1372 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 1351, 67 L.Ed.2d 336 (1981). See also United States v. Neapolitan, 791 F.2d 489, 500 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 422, 93 L.Ed.2d 371 (1986) (quoting Anderson ); United States v. Tillett, 763 F.2d 628, 631 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 223-24 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849, 104 S.Ct. 157, 78 L.Ed.2d 145 (1983); United States v. Lemm, 680 F.2d 1193, 1198 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1110, 103 S.Ct. 739, 74 L.Ed.2d 960 (1983). 89 Most of these cases, e.g., Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1198, interpret the following language from Turkette: The 'enterprise' is not the 'pattern of racketeering activity'; it is an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages. 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 2529. To the extent these courts have held that the enterprise is not equivalent to the pattern of racketeering, we are in accord. The same group of individuals who repeatedly commit predicate offenses do not necessarily comprise an enterprise. An extra ingredient is required: organization. To the extent, however, these cases suggest that the organization cannot be inferred from the pattern (or even more, that the organization cannot exist unless it does something other than commit predicate acts), we cannot agree. Turkette specifically recognizes that the proof of the enterprise may coalesce with the proof of the pattern, i.e., that the different conclusions may be inferred from proof of the same predicate acts. 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 2529. The more extreme conclusion, that the enterprise must have non-criminal manifestations, was rejected by the precise holding of Turkette. 90 Those courts imposing a strict separateness requirement appear to be concerned that RICO could be expanded to encompass even a sporadic and temporary criminal alliance. Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1201. They need not be, however, if proper attention is given to the organization and continuity requirements for the enterprise, on the one hand, and the continuity plus relationship requirement for the pattern of racketeering, on the other hand. See Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285 n. 14 (quoting S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 158 (1969)). 91 We therefore follow those courts that have held that the government satisfies its burden if it proves the existence of the enterprise and of the pattern, and refuse to require the government to prove each by separate evidence. See United States v. Mazzei, 700 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945, 103 S.Ct. 2124, 77 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1983); see also United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1093-94, modified in different part, 828 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 228, 98 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987); United States v. Qaoud, 777 F.2d 1105, 1115 (6th Cir.1985) (citing Mazzei ), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098, 106 S.Ct. 1499, 89 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986); United States v. Hewes, 729 F.2d 1302, 1310-11 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1110, 105 S.Ct. 790, 83 L.Ed.2d 783 (1984); United States v. DeRosa, 670 F.2d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 993, 103 S.Ct. 353, 74 L.Ed.2d 391 (1982). 92 Judge Gesell instructed the jury as follows: 93 An enterprise may be a group of people, partnerships and corporations that become associated together in an organized continuing unit for a common purpose of engaging in a legal or illegal course of conduct. 94 The indictment charges that the enterprise in this case was a group of individuals, partnerships and corporations associated for the common purpose of unjustly enriching themselves from the proceeds of government contracts and subcontracts.... 95 .... 96 It is not necessary that the enterprise, if it existed, have any particular or formal structure but it must have sufficient organization that its members function and operated together in a coordinated manner in order to carry out the common purpose alleged. 97 J.A. at 266-67. This instruction properly defined the elements of an association-in-fact. The instruction required the jury to find (1) common purpose, (2) organization, and (3) continuity.