Conspiracy Sentencing Through its verdicts of guilt on the RICO charge, the jury necessarily found that each defendant agreed that he or a co-conspirator would participate in Mafia affairs through a “pattern of racketeering activity,” also known as predicate acts. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d). Under the sentencing guidelines, the offense level for. a RICO conspiracy conviction may depend on which predicate acts were reasonably foreseeable and attributable to a defendant. See U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1 (setting base offense level for RICO conviction at either 19 or “the offense level applicable to the underlying racketeering activity,” whichever is greater); United States v. Carrozza, 4 F.3d 70, 74-77 (1st Cir. 1993) (explaining that the term “underlying rack 168 (3d Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tocco, 306 F.3d 279, 286
holding that sentencing court is permitted to consider evidence of both uncharged acts and evidence underlying counts on which the defendant has been acquitted holding that the district court could constitutionally consider the acquitted conduct in rico sentencing holding that a district court may not impose a sentencing enhancement based on conduct of which the jury acquitted the defendant holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct holding sentencing courts may consider evidence of conduct or charges of which a defendant was acquitted