her husband, an Eme member; passed messages to her husband and other Eme members in order to facilitate communication between murder conspirators; smuggled drugs into prison; and accepted payment for drugs sold on the street. We affirm her conviction for conspiracy to violate RICO. 3. Sanchez’s challenge to Count Two: general insufficiency Like his arguments in relation to count one, Sanchez’s challenge to his conviction of RICO conspiracy in count two also focuses on whether or not certain overt acts were committed. The government construes these arguments as assertions that Sanchez must have committed some overt act in order to be convicted of conspiracy, and correctly argues that the prosecution was not required to prove that he committed any such act with respect to c th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11, 18 (1st
holdingthat in determining base offense level in a rico case district court should not limit its relevant conduct to predicate acts charged against the defendant but instead should consider all conduct reasonably foreseeable to the defendant in furtherance of the rico enterprise holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim holding that judge erred in not explaining to jury that it could consider predicate acts listed in relation to substantive rico count when deciding whether defendants had also conspired to violate rico holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico conspiracy holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico