courts to examine the offense that is the object of the conspiracy to determine whether the conspiracy is a felony or misdemeanor. As such, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that [t]he fact that the jury found Ms. Island guilty of embezzlement of a sum less than $1,000 has no real bearing on whether the jury found guilt on the felony conspiracy charged in the indictment. It is a separate crime. It is a charge of conspiring to violate the laws of the United States, not to embezzle money from the Cheyenne & Arapaho tribe. The overt acts alleged in support of the conspiracy allege that a sum in excess of $15,000 was the object of the conspiracy. That is clearly a felony. R. Vol. 1, Sentencing Hr’g at 5. See generally United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1277 (10th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The judgment of the district court is
holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy holding it is the mere agreement to violate rico that  1962d forbids it is not necessary to prove any substantive rico violations ever occurred as a result of the conspiracy without mentioning neibels limitations on who may be held liable for rico conspiracy which posit that conspiracy liability is dependent on potential substantive liability if the scheme were successfully completed holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins holding that because it is axiomatic that the defendants could have been prosecuted for conspiracy without ever having committed a substantive crime they could be charged with felony conspiracy and misdemeanors