893 F.2d 1267 (11th Cir. 1990), 85-3517, United States v. Hobson

Docket Nº:85-3517, 86-3589.
Citation:893 F.2d 1267
Party Name:RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7471 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Russell HOBSON, Defendant-Appellant. Russell HOBSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Case Date:February 07, 1990
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1267

893 F.2d 1267 (11th Cir. 1990)

RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7471

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Russell HOBSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Russell HOBSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 85-3517, 86-3589.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

February 7, 1990

Page 1268

James M. Shellow, Stephen M. Glynn, Shellow, Shellow & Glynn, S.C., Milwaukee, Wis., for Hobson.

Mike Moore and Kenneth Sukhia, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tallahassee, Fla., W. Thomas Dillard, U.S. Atty., Pensacola, Fla., Ferdinand W. Bockelman, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Before GODBOLD [*], HILL [*], and ESCHBACH [**], Senior Circuit Judges.

REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

The judgment in this case was vacated by the Supreme Court and the case remanded for further consideration in the light of H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2893, 106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). Hobson v. U.S., 492 U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3233, 106 L.Ed.2d 581 (1989). The narrow issue presented by Hobson in his petition for certiorari, and restated in his brief before us on remand, is "whether an isolated act which simultaneously violates two statutes may be charged as 'two acts of racketeering activity' demonstrating the 'continuity' necessary to establish 'a pattern of racketeering activity' under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(5)."

The predicate acts relied upon for conviction of Hobson under the substantive RICO count arise in the context of his conviction under two other counts for aiding and abetting importation of a load of marijuana aboard a Constellation aircraft and aiding and abetting possession of the same load of marijuana aboard the Constellation aircraft with intent to distribute. In his direct appeal to this court, and in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, Hobson has asserted that he committed only one isolated act relating to the importation and possession counts which consisted of making (together with his partner Waldrop) a $1.5 million advance payment for the load of marijuana aboard the Constellation, which act, he says, does not meet the continuity requirements of H.J. Inc,. For purposes of this...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP