Document: 514 U.S. 669115 S.Ct. 1732131 L.Ed.2d 714 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Juan Paul ROBERTSON. No. 94-251. Supreme Court of the United States May 1, 1995. Drew S. Days, III, Sol. Gen., Jo Ann Harris, Asst. Atty. Michael R. Dreeben, Acting Deputy Miguel A. Estrada, to Dept. Justice, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Glenn Stewart Warren (Appointed by this Court), San Diego, CA, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent, Juan Robertson, was charged with various narcotics offenses, and violating § 1962(a) Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. (1988 ed. Supp. V), investing proceeds those unlawful activities in "acquisition any interest in, or establishment operation of, enterprise which is engaged affect, interstate foreign commerce." 1962(a). He convicted on some counts, RICO count reason his investment a certain gold mine. The Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed conviction ground that Government had failed introduce sufficient evidence proving mine "engaged affect[ed] commerce". 15 F.3d 862, 868 (1994). We granted States' petition certiorari. 513 ----, 115 354, 130 309 2 facts relevant affecting commerce" issue were as follows: Some time 1985, Robertson entered into partnership agreement another man, whereby he agreed finance goldmining Alaska. In fulfillment obligation, who resided Arizona, made cash payment $125,000 placer mining claims near Fairbanks. paid approximately $100,000 (in cash) equipment supplies, purchased Los Angeles transported Alaska use also hired expenses seven out-of-state employees travel work dissolved during first season, but continued operate through 1987 sole proprietorship. again number from outside During its operating life, produced between $200,000 $290,000 worth gold, most sold refiners within Alaska, although personally $30,000 out State. 3 Most parties' arguments, here Circuit, addressed question whether "affected" commerce. have concluded we do not consider point. "affecting test developed our jurisprudence define extent Congress's power over purely intrastate commercial nonetheless substantial effects. See, e.g., Wickard v. Filburn, 317 111, 63 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942). proof at Robertson's trial, however, focused largely For example, proved least supplies Contrary Appeals' suggestion, all items locally ("drawn generally stream commerce," F.3d, 869 (internal quotation marks omitted)); them California mine's operations. Cf. American Building Maintenance Industries, 422 271, 285, 95 2150, 2159, 45 177 (1975) (allegation company local purchases merely manufactured state insufficient show meaning 7 Clayton Act). that, more than one occasion, sought workers brought id., 274, S.Ct., 2153. Furthermore, proprietor, took 15% total output, him 4 Whether these met (and not, bring provision RICO, they would meet) requirement substantially commerce, assuredly 1962(a)'s alternative criterion "any . As said Maintenance, corporation 'in commerce' " when it itself "directly production, distribution, acquisition goods services Id., 283, 2158. See Gulf Oil Corp. Copp Paving Co., Inc., 419 186, 195, 392, 398, 42 378 (1974). judgment 5 Reversed.

Category: 0