Court’s opinion in Salinas. Accordingly, this case presents a situation similar to Miller v. Gammie, in which we held that “where the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority, a three-judge panel should consider itself bound by the later and controlling Cir.1993)). The evidence at trial showed that Schoenberg collected protection money for the Erne on behalf ir.2002) (noting, in case of defendants convicted under §§ 1962(c) and (d) that, although the two are legally distinct crimes, “[t]he substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy counts required the defendants to be found guilty of at least two racketeering acts or predicate acts.”); United States v. Bennett, 44 F.3d 1364, 1374 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 4. Gavaldon’s challenge to Count Two: Not an
holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a rico conspiracy claim despite his inability to bring a substantive rico claim holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico holding the fedrevid 801d2e requires proof of the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence and allows consideration of the offered declaration as part of the proof of the conspiracy holding that in addition to the elements of the substantive violation a rico conspiracy requires proof of the additional element of an agreement 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