U.S. v. Allen
| Decision Date | 20 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-5093,80-5093 |
| Citation | 656 F.2d 964 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sidney ALLEN, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Donald H. Feige, Towson, Md., for appellant.
David Dart Queen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Russell T. Baker, Jr., U. S. Atty., Catherine C. Blake, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
Sidney Allen and four others were convicted of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d). Allen, a bookmaker in Baltimore, had joined with one James Hooper, a former Baltimore City Policeman, and others to bribe officers on the Baltimore City Police Department. Hooper tried to bribe two officers in exchange for protection for the bookmaking operation. The officers reported Hooper's offer to their superiors who in turn contacted the FBI. The FBI, in consultation with the United States Attorney's office, conducted the investigation which resulted in this conviction.
The Government's evidence of the nexus between Allen's activities and interstate commerce consisted of showing that supplies used in the bookmaking operation had traveled in interstate commerce. Since Allen's racketeering activities were limited strictly to Baltimore City, he contends, therefore, that the Government failed to show a nexus between the enterprise, which he claims is the bribery scheme, and interstate commerce. Thus he claims he should not have been prosecuted under RICO, but rather under the Maryland bribery statute, Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 23. This contention is without merit.
The RICO statute under which Allen was convicted provides:
(c) It 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 racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (emphasis added). We have held that "(t)he Government need not demonstrate that the alleged acts of racketeering themselves directly involved interstate commerce." United States v. Altomare, 625 F.2d 5, 8 n. 8 (4th Cir. 1980). Thus the supplies used in Allen's bookmaking operations which originated outside of Maryland provided a sufficient nexus between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambers Devel. Co. v. Browning-Ferris Industries
...for supplies subsequently purchased in interstate commerce is sufficient to meet the jurisdictional test of RICO. In United States v. Allen, 656 F.2d 964 (4th Cir.1981), supplies used in a bookmaking operation which came from out-of-state were found to be an adequate Interstate telephone ca......
-
U.S. v. Doherty, s. 87-1681
...(RICO requires only a "minimal impact" on commerce, e.g., that alcohol sold by defendants was made out of state); United States v. Allen, 656 F.2d 964 (4th Cir.1981) (supplies used in bookmaking operation originated out of state); United States v. Altomare, 625 F.2d 5, 7-8 (4th Cir.1980) (p......
-
Krowel v. Massad (In re Fiorillo)
...Circuit found an impact on interstate commerce when supplies used in a bookmaking enterprise originated out of state, United States v. Allen, 656 F.2d 964 (4th Cir.1981), and when the interstate telephone calls were made, United States v. Altomare, 625 F.2d 5, 7–8 (4th Cir.1980). 57. RICO's......
-
U.S. v. Robinson
...commerce. E.g., Bunker Ramo Corp. v. United Business Forms, Inc., 713 F.2d 1272, 1289 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. Allen, 656 F.2d 964, 964 (4th Cir.1981) (per curiam); United States v. Rone, 598 F.2d 564, 573 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 1345, 63 L.Ed.2d 780 (1......
-
Has the Supreme Court really turned RICO upside down?: an examination of NOW v. Scheidler.
...commerce. Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971) (giving liberal interpretation of interstate commerce); United States v. Allen, 656 F.2d 964 (4th Cir. 1981); United States v. Altomare, 625 F.2d 5 (4th Cir. 1980). The car dealership would serve as the RICO enterprise. See 18 U.S.C. [se......