also permissible. 1.The Facial Validity Issue Contrary to the defendants’ assertion, the Supreme Court’s R.A.V. decision did not preclude any and all regulation of cross burning. See R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 395-96, 112 S.Ct. at 2550. The Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2194, 124 L.Ed.2d 436 (1993), clearly limited the impact of R.A.V. on statutes, like the ones at issue here, which are aimed at conduct as opposed to expression. In Mitchell the Supreme Court upheld a Wisconsin statute that permitted penalty enhancement for racially motivated crimes. In doing so, the Supreme Court recognized that a statute aimed at constitutionally unprotected conduct may single out a particular motive, including racial animus, for punishment withou Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gilbert, 813 F.2d 1523,
holding  3631 not vague or overbroad holding factor b is not unconstitutionally vague holding  241 not vague or overbroad holding  241 and 3631 not vague holding vague allegations of bias insufficient