Opinion ID: 198347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proof Necessary to Show a Pattern of Racketeering Activity

Text: 79 Owens also argues that the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on the proof necessary to show a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The district court instructed that, to establish a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO, the government must prove that Owens's racketeering acts are related or that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. Owens argues, and the government concedes, that Supreme Court precedent requires proof that the racketeering acts are related and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. See H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). Owens therefore correctly asserts that the disjunctive should have been conjunctive. 80 Owens, however, failed to object to this instruction in the district court, and we therefore review only for plain error under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). 8 See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). For Rule 52(b) to apply, an error or defect raised for the first time on appeal must be plain, meaning clear or obvious, and it must have affect[ed] substantial rights, meaning, in most cases, [i]t must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Even then, error correction under Rule 52(b) is entirely discretionary, and should be exercised only when an error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770. 81 Moreover, the Supreme Court has made it clear that where the government sets forth essentially uncontroverted evidence that overwhelmingly supports a conviction, the conviction should stand unless the defendant makes a plausible argument that the instructional error affected the verdict. See Johnson, 520 U.S. at 466, 117 S.Ct. 1544. At trial, the government presented evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrated Owens's involvement in large-scale drug trafficking and with associated violence from 1988 to the time of his arrest in 1995. Moreover, the evidence all but compelled the conclusion that Owens would have continued to engage in such activities had the police not intervened by arresting him and ending the enterprise. Thus, there is a wealth of evidence to support the conclusion that Owens's racketeering acts were related and posed a threat of continued criminal activity (i.e., pattern of racketeering). We therefore decline to find plain error under Rule 52(b).