Opinion ID: 2708559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Fernando King

Text: Nos. 11-3179 et al. 37 King was for a time the Supreme Regional Inca, just one step below the Corona in the gang’s chain of command. He entered a guilty plea to the charges of RICO conspiracy and the drug-distribution conspiracy, without any plea bargain. His arguments pertain only to his sentence. We need say very little about these arguments, because we understand all of them to be raised in this court primarily for the purpose of preserving them for further review. King argues that the district court violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and sentencing guideline § 1B1.2(d) when it found facts using a preponderance standard, instead of the reasonable-doubt standard. We have rejected the argument that a heightened standard is required. E.g. United States v. Johnson, 342 F.3d 731, 735–36 (7th Cir. 2003); cf. United States v. Heckel, 570 F.3d 791, 797 & n.3 (7th Cir. 2009). More importantly, the Supreme Court thus far has adhered to the rule that “[s]entencing factors … can be proved to a judge at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218, 224 (2010). King also argues that sentencing guideline § 1B1.2(d) represents a special case in which supporting findings must be made beyond a reasonable doubt. That provision reads: “A conviction on a count charging a conspiracy to commit more than one offense shall be treated as if the defendant had been convicted on a separate count of conspiracy for each offense that the defendant conspired to commit.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(d). The note explains that when a guilty verdict or plea does not establish the object of a conspiracy, a defendant should be sentenced based on an offense that was the object of the conspiracy “if the court, were it sitting as a trier of fact, would convict the defendant of conspiring to 38 Nos. 11-3179 et al. commit that object offense.” Id. at n.4. The Eleventh Circuit has applied this provision to require proof of RICO predicate acts beyond a reasonable doubt, see United States v. Nguyen, 255 F.3d 1335, 1342 (11th Cir. 2001), but every other circuit to consider the question has held that § 1B1.2(d) does not apply to RICO conspiracies. See United States v. Massino, 546 F.3d 123, 135 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 528, 541–42 (6th Cir. 2000); United States v. Carrozza, 4 F.3d 70, 79– 80 (1st Cir. 1993). The latter circuits reason that RICO conspiracies are of the single-object variety, with the object being to engage in racketeering. The predicate racketeering acts are not, in themselves, conspiratorial objects. We have understood RICO conspiracies in the same way as the majority of our sister circuits—that is, as arrangements devoted to a single objective. See United States v. Tello, 687 F.3d 785, 794 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Campione, 942 F.2d 429, 437 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Ashman, 979 F.2d 469, 485 (7th Cir. 1992) (“The goal of a RICO conspiracy is a violation of RICO.”). Consistently with that view, we now hold that § 1B1.2(d) does not apply to RICO conspiracies. We note that this position has the virtue of fitting better with the RICO guideline, § 2E1.1(a)(2), which calls for replacing the RICO baseline of 19 with the level applicable to the most serious underlying conduct if that offense level would be higher. That would make little sense if the underlying conduct had to be treated as separate counts.