United States). Accordingly, the people of Puerto Rico “do not exercise the full sovereignty of an independent nation.” Id. at 435. Instead, Puerto Rico possesses “a measure of autonomy comparable to that possessed by the States.” Examining Bd. of Eng’rs, Architects & Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 594, 597, 96 S.Ct. 2264, 49 L.Ed.2d 65(1976) (stating that the purpose of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act was “to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with States of the Union”); see also United States v. Acostar-Martinez, 168 (1st Cir.1987) (“Puerto Rico is to be treated as a state for purposes of the double jeopardy clause.”); Cordova & Simonpietri Ins. Agency Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank N.A., 649 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Although the United States Supreme Court has
holding that puerto rico is to be treated like a state for purposes of the sherman antitrust act holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment holding that the code applied to puerto rico under 48 usc  734 holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed