expectations. 116 F.3d at 1078. Among the evidence presented was the custom of “throwing” rival gang signs: Gangs would identify themselves with hand gestures, and one’s response indicated whether he respected or “dissed” the other’s gang. Id. The evidence showed that members were expected to retaliate violently when “dissed” by other gang members. Id. Although the court acknowledged that VICAR does not criminalize “mere retaliation for ‘dissing’ an individual or social organization,” the nature of the organization, which relied on violence to secure its role in drug trafficking, meant that “a reasonable jury could find that violent retaliation for acts of disrespect promoted the goals of[the] illegal enterprise.” Id.; see also United States v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861, 891 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Fiel, 35 F.3d at 1004-05 (holding that the
holding that the purpose element is satisfied where aversion to violent acts would invite trouble from other gang members holding that even though some of employees duties appeared to satisfy the directly related element the element was not satisfied where those duties were not part of his primary duty holding that the purpose element of vicar was satisfied where the enterprise expected affronts to gang members to be met with a violent response holding that the annual dollar value requirement of enterprise coverage is an element of the claim holding that the operation of a competitive business enterprise which was expected to provide a financial return that would be of benefit to the municipal corporation was proprietary