of the documents in Plaintiff's possession could not be found during the investigation of the Fund in the fall of 2002, but were then found in the Luzerne County annex building in 2004. (See Koehler Dep. 98:16-24, Doc. 434-19 at 26.) This is a more reasonable inference to draw than mail and/or wire fraud. 66 . While Count V of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which alleged a violation of section 1962(b), was dismissed for failure to adequately state an injury from Defendants' acquisition or control of an interest in a RICO enterprise, the substantive allegations of a section 1962(b) violation can still sustain a claim for a section 1962(d) violation. Rehkop v. Berwick Healthcare Corp., 95 F.3d 285, 290 (3d Cir.1996). 67 . See Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1191 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 366 (3d
holding that adea class actions are optin actions under  216b not optout actions subject to rule 23 holding that the actions were not actions of public and general applicability but were actions directed principally and primarily at plaintiffs holding that  1962d does not violate the principle prohibiting conviction of multiple conspiracies under an indictment charging a single conspiracy holding that because defendants actions did not constitute violations of subsections a b or c these actions could not serve as the object of a section 1962d conspiracy holding that for purposes of determining the appropriate limitations period section 14a actions are treated identically to actions under section 10b