as part of a greater scheme of violations, and the scheme must be one in which the defendant supervises five or more people and from which he realizes substantial financial gain. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the series of predicate offenses that the defendant must commit is “a different portion of the statute” from the requirement that the defendant supervise five or more other persons. Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 824, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999). Second, the Supreme Court has not defined the phrase “in concert with” to require concerted action. It has held that “the plain meaning of the phrase ‘in concert’ signifies mutual agreement in a common plan or enterprise.” Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 300, 116 S.Ct. 1241, 134 L.Ed.2d 419 (1996) (<HOLDING>). See also id. at 299 n. 10 (noting that “in
holding that double jeopardy precluded conviction for both conspiracy and engaging in a cce when the conspiracy was used to prove the cce holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense holding that conspiracy is lesserincluded offense of cce holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc  848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc  848c