United States v. Garcia

Citation754 F.3d 460
Decision Date13 June 2014
Docket Number11–3874,11–3493,11–3615,11–3410,12–1141,11–3886,Nos. 11–3179,12–1804,13–1370.,s. 11–3179
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Luis GARCIA, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Mark E. Schneider, (Georgia N. Alexakis, on the briefs), Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

William Donald Shaver, Law Office of William D. Shaver, Chicago, IL, for DefendantAppellant.

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and SYKES and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

WOOD, Chief Judge.

This extensive criminal prosecution arises out of the operations of the Latin Kings street gang in Chicago from 2000 to 2008. Fifteen highly placed gang leaders were charged with violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, as well as the commission of other crimes. Nine of those defendants have joined in the present appeals: Luis Garcia, Felipe Zamora, Fernando King, Samuel Gutierrez, Javier Ramirez, Jose Guzman, Augustin Zambrano, Alfonso Chavez, and Vicente Garcia. We find no reversible error in either the convictions or the sentences for defendants Luis Garcia, King, Ramirez, Guzman, Zambrano, Chavez, and Vicente Garcia. Nor do we find any error in the convictions of Zamora and Gutierrez; the sentences for the latter two defendants, however, must be revisited.

I
A

The Almighty Latin Kings Nation is a notorious street gang in Chicago. During the time covered by the indictment, the Latin Kings carried out a racketeering conspiracy involving murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, extortion, and drug trafficking. This particular case focuses on the gang's activities in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood.

The gang operated under a constitution that set forth an elaborate governing hierarchy. At the summit stood La Corona (The Crown), the title the Latin Kings chose for their highest ranking officers nationwide. According to the constitution, Coronas ensured that officers complied with gang rules, administered the gang's rules when needed, and gave final approval to all such rules. Defendant Zambrano occupied the post of Corona during the years 2000 to 2008. According to the government, Zambrano was the only active Corona in the gang nationwide during that period.

Immediately below the Corona were the Supreme Regional Incas. Each Supreme Regional Inca oversaw operations in all regions within his designated geographic area, implemented gang rules, ensured punishment when the rules were violated, and ordered retaliatory strikes against rival gangs. Defendant King was a Supreme Regional Inca from 2007 to 2008, and defendant Vicente Garcia took over King's post in 2008.

Under the Supreme Regional Inca were a series of Regional Incas, who managed operations in smaller territories. Defendants Zamora, Vicente Garcia, King, and cooperating witness Milton Shanna all held at one time or another the rank of Regional Inca. Each region was further divided into a number of sections; each section was under the control of someone called the Section Inca or just the Inca. The Regional Incas formed a crucial link between the gang's top leaders and its street-level managers and foot-soldiers. Shanna, for example, was responsible for distributing cocaine to and later collecting the sales proceeds from the Section Incas in his region, under the orders of then-Supreme Regional Inca Vicente Garcia. Section Incas provided a steady flow of information to the Regional Incas; that information then made its way up the gang's chain of command. The Regional Incas also set rules for their areas. For example, while serving as a Regional Inca, King wrote what came to be known as the Little Village Rules, which, among other things, required the Latin Kings to maintain an armed presence (“mandatory bust-out”) every Thursday through Sunday from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m.

Other gang officers, called the Regional Enforcers, reported to the Regional Incas. Defendant Guzman and cooperating witnesses Ruben Caquias and Shanna spent some time as Regional Enforcers. As the title suggests, Regional Enforcers ensured compliance with gang rules and meted out punishment against rule-breakers. For example, they patrolled gang territory during mandatory bust-outs and administered timed beatings (known as violations) when gang rules were broken. If another gang member was assigned to inflict the “violation” on someone, the Regional Enforcers watched to be sure that the beating was conducted properly.

The Section Incas (or simply Incas) were leaders of street sections, also called “branches” or “chapters.” Defendants Chavez (after October 2007), Luis Garcia, Gutierrez, and Ramirez, along with cooperating witnesses Caquias and Shanna, held this position for at least part of the relevant period. Sections were relatively small: most contained about 25 members. Incas carried out directives from those above them in the hierarchy. They ensured that the proper armed presence was maintained when required; they remitted about $200 per week from the gang's cocaine business to their superiors; and they carried out mandatory retaliatory shootings within 48 hours whenever a Latin King in a nearby neighborhood was shot by a rival. The Inca had a sectional “Casique” who served as second-in-command and as the local enforcer. Under gang rules, an Inca was fully responsible for the actions of his subordinates and would be “violated” along with the offender if one of his street-level subordinates broke the rules.

B

Although it would be impossible in a reasonable space to recount all of the gang's activities from 2000 to 2008, that is fortunately unnecessary. At trial, the government focused on a number of specific incidents, which we summarize here. We include further details where necessary below, as we discuss the individual defendants' appeals. Broadly speaking, the criminal activities fell into four categories: murder (including attempted murder and indiscriminate shootings); drug distribution; extortion; and violent punishments of disobedient gang members. Examples of each will suffice.

Murders and Attempted Murders. Testimony at the trial revealed that Latin Kings regularly shot rival gang members on the orders of gang superiors; they used the terms “burns” and “missions” to describe these incidents. In the early 2000s, Vicente Garcia ordered Shanna to shoot a suspected member of the rival Two–Six gang who had been seen in a bar frequented by Latin Kings. The order was carried out: Latin Kings shot the man in the chest about five times. Around the same time, King ordered Shanna (then an Inca) to have one of his soldiers shoot other Two–Six gang members; once again, the subordinates completed the mission.

The fall of 2007 was a particularly violent period. That September, the Latin Kings carried out retaliatory drive-by shootings against members of two rival gangs, the Two–Sixes and the Latin Disciples, after defendant Gutierrez was shot. Shanna testified that Guzman ordered the five sections nearest Gutierrez's to carry out the attacks. The jury heard a recording of Guzman discussing this “burn” with Shanna; Zambrano and Vicente Garcia were present when Guzman gave the order. In October 2007, soldiers under Ramirez's command shot and killed Oberia Pierce and wounded his companion Keith Morgan. The two victims apparently had come to Little Village to buy drugs. In a recorded conversation, Ramirez told Shanna that “some pimp” was “smoked” by his guys, and that Ramirez was hiding the shooter. Then, in November of the same year, unidentified Latin Kings shot at an SUV carrying members of a band who were trying to park in the Kings' territory. In a recorded conversation, Inca Chavez explained that the Kings shot at the car because it was speeding in Little Village. Shanna testified at the trial that the gang had standing instructions to fire at traffic violators, as they were thought to indicate a threat to the gang.

The violence continued in 2008. In January, the Latin Kings retaliated viciously after Shanna was shot by a Two–Six gang member. The victim, Jaime Galvan, was shot multiple times, once “in the dome” as the local Inca later boasted in a recorded conversation. Two other Latin Kings proceeded to beat Galvan after he was shot; he survived and testified at the trial, even though the bullet remains lodged in his head.

Drug Distribution. One way the Latin Kings made money was by selling cocaine. Evidence at the trial illustrated several occasions in 2007 and 2008 when gang leaders distributed cocaine to Incas, who were expected to sell it on the street. Vicente Garcia organized weekly distributions of seven grams of cocaine to each of the 24 Incas in Little Village; they were all supposed to return $200 from the proceeds of these sales to the gang's treasury (known as The Box) within a few days. Guzman also met with each distributing Inca. Chavez was one of the Incas who took the cocaine and later returned the required cash. Similar transactions took place throughout early 2008.

Extortion. Another source of the gang's funds was extortion of a group known as the “Miqueros.” The Miqueros were in the business of selling fraudulent identification documents at several locations in the Latin Kings' 26th Street Region. The Latin Kings required the Miqueros to pay a substantial “street tax” of about $2,000 to $2,500 every month for “protection.” In return for the tax, the Latin Kings agreed that they would not start their own phony-document business, a commitment codified in the Little Village Rules. The evidence showed that this practice had been going on since at least 1996.

Shanna testified that as long as the Miqueros paid the tax and complied with certain restrictions, the Latin Kings refrained from harassing or punishing them. The consequences for disobeying the Latin Kings, however, were severe. In January 1998, for example, after some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • United States v. Barragan
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 8, 2017
    ..."every other circuit to consider the question has held that § 1B1.2(d) does not apply to RICO conspiracies." United States v. Garcia , 754 F.3d 460, 482 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Carrozza , 4 F.3d at 79–80 ; United States v. Massino , 546 F.3d 123, 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); United Stat......
  • United States v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • September 27, 2021
    ...sentence for this defendant. Nelson v. United States , 555 U.S. 350, 351, 129 S.Ct. 890, 172 L.Ed.2d 719 (2009) ; United States v. Garcia , 754 F.3d 460, 483 (7th Cir. 2014). The 2018 sentencing guidelines apply. See Peugh v. United States , 569 U.S. 530, 531, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 186 L.Ed.2d 84......
  • United States v. Chester
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • August 8, 2017
    ...provisions. Volpendesto, 746 F.3d at 284. In other words, the goal of a RICO conspiracy is a violation of RICO. United States v. Garcia, 754 F.3d 460, 482 (7th Cir. 2014). To prove a RICO conspiracy, the government must show (1) an agreement to conduct or participate in the affairs (2) of a......
  • White v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • December 10, 2020
    ...the federal RICO conspiracy statute).104 United States v. Grayson , 795 F.2d 278, 283 (3d Cir. 1986) ; see also United States v. Garcia , 754 F.3d 460, 474 (7th Cir. 2014) (stating that, "[t]he only question before us in thus ‘whether Congress, in making the predicate RICO acts relevant to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...Tocco, 306 F.3d 279, 286 (6th Cir. 2002)); United States v. Kallen-Zury, 629 F. App’x 894, 914 (11th Cir. 2015); United States v. Garcia, 754 F.3d 460, 488 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Dougherty, 706 F. App’x 736, 742 (3d Cir. 2017). 1226 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:1197 defe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT