United States v. James Lynch

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 16, 2008
No. 07-12077 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-60149-CR-JIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES LYNCH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 16, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
I.
James Lynch appeals his conviction for violating the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (“RICO”), by conducting the
affairs of the American Maritime Officers Union (“Union”) and its member benefit
plans (“Plans”) through a conspiracy of racketeering activity, by which Lynch and
his three co-conspirators, Robert McKay (“Robert”), Michael McKay (“Michael”),
and Phillip Ciccarelli, sought to dominate and control the operations of the Union
and the Plans in order to maintain their positions and enrich themselves.
Lynch, an employee of the Plans, was a captain of one of the Plans’s motor
vessels, the “AMOS.” As part of the conspiracy, Lynch solicited a cash payment
of $30,000 from the owner of a boatyard where Lynch took the AMOS for repairs.
Lynch then gave the money to the executive director of the Plans to be used to
reimburse employees for their political contributions. Lynch also instructed the
boatyard owner to inflate the invoice to cover the cost of repairs to a dive boat
owned by Michael. Furthermore, Lynch inflated his expenses on things such as
restaurant receipts to cover his personal costs.
On appeal, Lynch contends that because he was a “mere captain,” he should
not “have been pegged” with involvement in the conspiracy, and the government
did not establish the necessary nexus between his acts of racketeering and the
2
enterprise of the Union and the Plans. He further argues that the predicate acts of
which he was found guilty lacked continuity and did not establish a pattern of
racketeering.
II.
We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction de
novo, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and
drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jury’s
verdict.” United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000). We
will uphold the district court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal “if a
reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence establishes the defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Determinations of the credibility of
witnesses fall within the exclusive province of the jury and may not be revisited by
us unless the testimony is “incredible as a matter of law.” United States v.
Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
III.
Pursuant to the RICO statute, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person
employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of
which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of
3
racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). In order
to establish a RICO conspiracy, the government must prove: “(1) that an enterprise
existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendants
were employed by or associated with the enterprise; (4) that the defendants
participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise; and (5)
that the defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity.” United
States v. Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1257 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v.
Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525, 1541 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, 76
USLW 3512 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2008)).
To establish the fifth element of a RICO conspiracy, the government must
prove that the predicate acts related to the enterprise charged and that they actually
formed a pattern, in that they related to each other and had continuity. Browne, 505
F.3d at 1257. Regarding the relationship element, the predicate acts must “have
the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of
commission, or otherwise [be] interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and . . .
not [be] isolated events.” Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496
n.14, 105 S. Ct. 3275, 3285 n.14, 87 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1985) (quoting 18 U.S.C. §
3575(e)). Continuity can be proven under a closed-ended theory – by
demonstrating a series of related predicate acts extending over a substantial period
4
of time – or under an open-ended theory – by demonstrating a threat of continuity
extending into the future by showing that: (1) the predicate acts include a specific
threat of repetition extending into the future indefinitely; or (2) the predicate acts
are part of an entity’s regular way of doing business. Browne, 505 F.3d at 1259-60
(citing H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 109 S. Ct. 2893, 106
L. Ed. 2d 195 (1989)). “Any two predicate acts can be sufficient for the jury to
find continuity.” Id. at 1260. “Reversal of either a jury's finding of continuity or a
conviction on a substantive RICO count is not required simply because some
predicate acts are factually insufficient, as long as there remain at least two
adequately proven acts.” Id. at 1261.
The government did not need to prove that Lynch agreed to participate in all
of the substantive predicate acts associated with the conspiracy, as a defendant can
be found guilty of a conspiracy even if he did not commit the substantive acts, and
“[t]he touchstone of liability is an agreement to participate in a RICO conspiracy,
which may be shown in two ways: (1) showing an agreement on the overall
objective of the conspiracy, or (2) showing that a defendant agreed to commit
personally two predicate acts, thereby agreeing to participate in a ‘single
objective.’” Id. at 1264. Where there is no direct evidence of an agreement on an
overall objective, the government can use circumstantial evidence of a scheme or
5
inferences from the conduct of the alleged participants to prove that an agreement
existed, in which each defendant must have known that others also were conspiring
to participate in the same enterprise. Id.
IV.
Here, the record demonstrates that the government established, through
direct trial testimony, that Lynch committed at least two of the predicate acts
charged, including: (1) theft and embezzlement from the Plans by arranging for the
boatyard owner to give him $30,000 in cash, to be used by Michael for political
contributions, and to inflate the repair invoices for the AMOS to pay for the repair
costs for two of Michael’s personal dive boats; and (2) theft and embezzlement
from the Plans by inflating his own expense submissions and receiving
reimbursement for expenses unrelated to his employment. These acts, which
evidenced Lynch’s indirect participation in the conduct of the enterprise, were
sufficient to establish a pattern because they were related to each other – they
involved the same purpose of financial enrichment for the co-conspirators – and
they had continuity because the conspirators anticipated continuing the acts into
the future indefinitely. Therefore, we conclude that the evidence presented by the
government was sufficient to allow a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that
Lynch was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm Lynch’s
6
conviction.
AFFIRMED.
7