not merely a ‘conspiracy to conspire’ as alleged by appellants, but is an overall conspiracy to violate a substantive provision of RICO Thus, the underlying acts of racketeering in a RICO conspiracy are not considered to be the objects of the conspiracy, but simply conduct that is relevant to the central objective — participating in a criminal enterprise. The existence of relevant conduct is determined at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Voyles, 995 F.2d 91, 93 n. 3 (6th Cir.1993). At resentencing, then, the district court would only be required to find that the defendants conspired to murder Bowman by a preponderance of the evidence in order for this offense to be used to calculate the defendants’ base offense level. See Carrozza, 4 F.3d at 80 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ruggiero, 100 F.3d 284, 291
holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding in the context a rico conspiracy that the applicability of relevant conduct need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence holding that prior convictions relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime do not need to be charged in an indictment or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt