United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019-08-12
18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: comparator; posture: criminal; gang members convicted of RICO conspiracy, drug and firearm offenses; second appeal challenged only § 924 convictions predicated on RICO conspiracy as a crime of violence; CA5 found plain error under Davis, vacated the § 924 counts and remanded (the RICO conspiracy convictions were not in issue); result: not-decided; claim: (d)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 19
| Case | Culpable person (§ 1961(3)) distinct from the enterprise under (c) | Pattern of racketeering activity (§ 1961(5)): at least two predicate acts with relatedness and continuity | Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) | Collection of an unlawful debt (§ 1961(6)) — alternative to pattern of racketeering activity | Use or investment of racketeering income in an enterprise (§ 1962(a)) | Enterprise (§ 1961(4)): legal entity or association-in-fact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Jones — 935 F.3d 266 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 19
| Case | Interstate or foreign commerce nexus | De minimis open-market securities investment proviso (§ 1962(a)) | Acquire or maintain interest in or control of an enterprise (§ 1962(b)) | Defendant employed by or associated with the enterprise (§ 1962(c)) | Conduct or participate in the conduct of enterprise affairs (§ 1962(c) operation or management test) | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Jones — 935 F.3d 266 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits |
Elements 13–18 of 19
| Case | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | But-for and proximate causation ("by reason of", 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under Agency Holding; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Claim preclusion / release by prior class-action settlement | Civil aiding and abetting a RICO violation (rejected as a private cause of action) | Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy bar against successive RICO conspiracy/substantive prosecutions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Jones — 935 F.3d 266 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–19 of 19
| Case | Parol evidence rule raised to bar extrinsic evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations |
|---|---|
| United States v. Jones — 935 F.3d 266 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Jones — 935 F.3d 266 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Conspiracy to violate § 1962(a), (b), or (c) (§ 1962(d)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (d); party: Deloyd Jones, Byron Jones and Sidney Patterson (appellants); count: Count 1 RICO conspiracy, used as the crime-of-violence predicate of the § 924 counts; theory: RICO conspiracy elements as comparator for crime of violence; subject: party=Deloyd Jones, Byron Jones and Sidney Patterson (appellants); count=Count 1 RICO conspiracy, used as the crime-of-violence predicate of the § 924 counts; theory=RICO conspiracy elements as comparator for crime of violence The elements of § 1962(d) conspiracy are recited only as the yardstick for § 924(c)(3): because the offense is a bare agreement, it is not a crime of violence. No § 1962 element is applied to the appellants' conduct in this opinion. | _comparator | Similarly, RICO conspiracy only requires that (1) "two or more people agreed to commit a substantive RICO offense"; and (2) "the defendant knew of and agreed to the overall objective of the RICO offense." Jones , 873 F.3d at 489.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0266-01; Unicode character offsets [7897:8126] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b39ef9af0577235cb76af90df64dd50cccc460a1f894f5cd623b454393911220. |