involvement, and the participants laid low after the murders. Vernace makes too much of the similarities between his case and Bruno. For one, where it was understandable in Bruno that the defendant would violently retaliate for personal reasons against two individuals — who sought to collect tens of thousands of dollars of loansharking debts from him and who he suspected had robbed him in the past — the personal angle here is far weaker and not one the jury was obliged to credit. Further, even if the dispute at the Shamrock Bar was initially personal, it grew to be t sanctioned by the Gambino crime family, the family sought to discipline Riccardi, and Vernace went into hiding did not preclude a finding that the murders were related to the family’s activities. See Bruno, 383 F.3d at 84 (<HOLDING>). After all, Vernace was not punished for
holding that conviction of and punishment for both the underlying predicate offense and continuing criminal enterprise does not violate double jeopardy holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico conspiracy holding that predicate acts need not be in furtherance of the enterprise holding that telephone conversations and meetings were overt acts in furtherance of a drug conspiracy holdingthat in determining base offense level in a rico case district court should not limit its relevant conduct to predicate acts charged against the defendant but instead should consider all conduct reasonably foreseeable to the defendant in furtherance of the rico enterprise