Opinion ID: 788340
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fernandez's challenge to his life sentence on Count Two

Text: 215 Fernandez argues that he was incorrectly sentenced to life imprisonment on the RICO conspiracy count, because conviction on that count did not require a finding that he had committed any particular act, much less the murder conspiracy that justified a life sentence under California law. Fernandez is correct that a § 1962(d) conviction does not require a substantive violation under § 1962(c) to have been established, in that the prosecution need not prove that the necessary predicate acts have been successfully completed. See Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65, 118 S.Ct. 469 (It is elementary that a conspiracy may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues ....); Oki Semiconductor Co., 298 F.3d at 774-75 (It is the mere agreement to violate RICO that § 1962(d) forbids; it is not necessary to prove any substantive RICO violations ever occurred as a result of the conspiracy.); Smith, 247 F.3d at 537 (In upholding the result in the Salinas case, the Supreme Court found that a violation of section 1962(c) was not a prerequisite to a violation of section 1962(d).). 216 Fernandez's further contention that there was no finding that he had in fact conspired to commit murder, at least as a predicate for count two, is incorrect. It is a well-established principle of RICO law that a murder conspiracy can be a predicate racketeering act under § 1962(c), see, e.g., Shryock, 342 F.3d at 967; Pungitore, 910 F.2d at 1134, and that predicate racketeering acts that are themselves conspiracies may form the basis for a charge and eventual conviction of conspiracy under § 1962(d). See, e.g., United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 528, 541-42 (6th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F.2d 913, 923 (2d Cir.1984), overruled on other grounds by Salinas, 522 U.S. at 61, 66, 118 S.Ct. 469); Pungitore, 910 F.2d at 1135 (3d Cir.1990). Even if the verdict for count two did not include any specific findings about the evidence underlying Fernandez's conviction, the jury explicitly found that he had conspired to murder three people as predicate acts for count one. It is evident, moreover, that his participation in the conspiracy to violate RICO included his conspiracies to commit substantive RICO violations. 45 The district court's reliance on Fernandez's conspiracies to commit murder to justify sentencing him to life imprisonment was not erroneous. 46 217 C. The district court's failure to consider making Sanchez's life sentence concurrent with his state term of imprisonment 218 Sanchez argues that the district court erred in finding that it lacked discretion to make his federal life sentence concurrent with his current state term of imprisonment. 47 The government concedes that the district court erred in finding it had no discretion, 2003 WL 22706781 at ; see also United States v. Arellano-Torres, 303 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2002), but argues that any error is harmless because Sanchez will spend the rest of his life in prison whether the federal sentence runs concurrent with or consecutive to his state sentence. See United States v. Mendoza, 121 F.3d 510, 513-14 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district court's selection of the sentence imposed). In light of the government's concession that there was error, however, we deem it appropriate to vacate Sanchez's sentence and remand for re-sentencing, so that the district court may consider whether to exercise its discretion to run Sanchez's federal sentence concurrent with his state term of imprisonment.