United States v. Leoner-Aguirre

Summary

The First Circuit affirmed a RICO conspiracy conviction for an MS-13 leader, holding that the government need not prove the defendant personally agreed to commit or committed two predicate acts; it is sufficient the defendant agreed that at least two racketeering acts would be committed. The court rejected a requested jury instruction based on *United States v. Ramírez-Rivera*, finding it inconsistent with *Salinas v. United States*. Imprisonment alone does not constitute withdrawal from a conspiracy; the defendant bears the burden of proving affirmative withdrawal, which is constitutional. The court also upheld the admission of co-conspirator hearsay statements and rejected double jeopardy and evidentiary challenges.

Holdings

1. The district court correctly rejected the Ramírez-Rivera instruction because it was inconsistent with Salinas v. United States, which does not require the government to prove that the defendant personally agreed to commit or committed two predicate acts.
2. No error in not requiring an affirmative finding on which specific predicate acts were committed, because the government's burden is only to prove the defendant agreed that at least two acts of racketeering would be committed.
3. The defendant did not withdraw from the conspiracy; imprisonment alone does not constitute withdrawal, and the evidence showed he continued to lead the gang from prison.
4. The district court did not err in admitting the co-conspirator statement or in ruling on other evidentiary issues; no Napue error or Rule 403 abuse.
5. Double jeopardy challenge is foreclosed by Gamble v. United States, which allows separate sovereign prosecutions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in rejecting a jury instruction on RICO conspiracy from United States v. Ramírez-Rivera.
2. Whether the district court should have required the jury to make an affirmative finding on which predicate acts were committed.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to negate his withdrawal defense and whether the burden of proof on withdrawal was constitutional.
4. Whether the district court erred in admitting certain testimony and recordings.
5. Whether the prosecution violated double jeopardy.

Disposition

affirmed