activity” refers to any predicate act that is relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3). The indictment in this case alleged many predicate acts, but the jury verdicts did not specify which were attributable to any particular defendant. At sentencing, the district court found certain predicate acts attributable to each defendant, based on a preponderance of the evidence presented at trial. 1. Findings of predicate acts Barragan and Franco argue that the district court erred in att g racketeering activity” in RICO guidelines includes “any act, whether or not charged against defendant personally, that qualifies as a RICO predicate act under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and is otherwise relevant conduct under § 1B1.3” (footnote omitted)); United States v. Pica, 692 F.3d 79, 88 (2d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Massimino, 641 Fed.Appx.
holding that the district court could constitutionally consider the acquitted conduct in rico sentencing holding that district court may treat acquitted conduct as relevant conduct at sentencing holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct holding that a district court may not impose a sentencing enhancement based on conduct of which the jury acquitted the defendant holding that a district court may find acquitted conduct by a preponderance of the evidence