United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019-02-25
18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: comparator; posture: civil; TVPA suit (18 U.S.C. § 1595) by a housekeeper against a State Department employee for forced labor and sex trafficking in Yemen in 2007; jury verdict for plaintiff affirmed. No RICO claim was pleaded: § 1962 and § 1964(c), as construed in RJR Nabisco, are the yardstick for deciding that § 1595 applies extraterritorially; result: not-decided; claim:
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roe v. Howard — 917 F.3d 229 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits | · 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)) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roe v. Howard — 917 F.3d 229 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roe v. Howard — 917 F.3d 229 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: comparator/merits | · 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 |
|---|---|
| Roe v. Howard — 917 F.3d 229 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roe v. Howard — 917 F.3d 229 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Civil RICO injury to business or property (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits theory: RJR Nabisco Part IV: the § 1964(c) private remedy is limited to certain injuries and is not coextensive with § 1962; subject: theory=RJR Nabisco Part IV: the § 1964(c) private remedy is limited to certain injuries and is not coextensive with § 1962 The court distinguishes RJR Nabisco's refusal to apply RICO's private cause of action abroad (the domestic-injury limit of § 1964(c)) as resting on textual limits that § 1595 lacks. No RICO injury is at issue in this case. | _comparator | Justice Alito emphasized that the text of § 1964(c) limited its application to certain types of injuries, and thereby created a gap between the reach of § 1964(c) civil liability and § 1962 criminal liability.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [34124:34333] (end exclusive); SHA-256 29f728b010834487a503bde7090678350764c57a6f39848f4c397089e1bf4214.Rather, civil liability under § 1964(c) is premised on § 1962 criminal liability, but - crucially - is not coextensive with § 1962 liability.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [33982:34123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 29f728b010834487a503bde7090678350764c57a6f39848f4c397089e1bf4214.In that regard, § 1595 of the TVPA resembles § 1962 of RICO rather than the circumscribed text of § 1964(c).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [34867:34975] (end exclusive); SHA-256 29f728b010834487a503bde7090678350764c57a6f39848f4c397089e1bf4214. |
| Roe v. Howard — 917 F.3d 229 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (18usc1962: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Racketeering activity (§ 1961(1) enumerated state and federal predicate offenses) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits theory: RJR Nabisco step one: a statute reaches foreign conduct to the extent it incorporates extraterritorial predicates; subject: theory=RJR Nabisco step one: a statute reaches foreign conduct to the extent it incorporates extraterritorial predicates Added in triage: the comparison the court actually relies on. § 1962's incorporation of extraterritorial predicate offenses is the model for reading the TVPA civil remedy; nothing is decided about any RICO predicate. | _comparator | The Court reasoned that "Congress's incorporation of [such] extraterritorial predicates into RICO gives a clear, affirmative indication that § 1962 applies to foreign racketeering activity - but only to the extent that the predicates alleged in a particular case themselves apply extraterritorially."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [28951:29251] (end exclusive); SHA-256 29f728b010834487a503bde7090678350764c57a6f39848f4c397089e1bf4214.In short, § 1595 evinces the same relationship to its extraterritorial predicate offenses that RICO's substantive criminal provision does to its predicates, and is not subject to textual limitations like those found in RICO's private cause of action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl#/f3d/917/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [35956:36206] (end exclusive); SHA-256 29f728b010834487a503bde7090678350764c57a6f39848f4c397089e1bf4214. |