United States v. Walter R. Webster, A/K/A Gangster, A/K/A Mr. G, United States of Am. v. Walter R. Webster, A/K/A Gangster, A/K/A Mr. G, A/K/A G, United States of Am. v. Richard Adams, A/K/A Mr. Richard, United States of Am. v. Norma Thompson, United States of Am. v. Boysie Ash, United States of Am. v. Victoria Wills, United States of Am. v. John v. Christian, A/K/A Wolf, United States of Am. v. Herbert Leon Johnson, A/K/A Herb, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Walter R. Webster, A/K/A Gangster, A/K/A Mr. G, United States of Am. v. Walter R. Webster, A/K/A Gangster, A/K/A Mr. G, A/K/A G, United States of Am. v. Richard Adams, A/K/A Mr. Richard, United States of Am. v. Norma Thompson, United States of Am. v. Boysie Ash, United States of Am. v. Victoria Wills, United States of Am. v. John v. Christian, A/K/A Wolf, United States of Am. v. Herbert Leon Johnson, A/K/A Herb, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
65 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 22 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Presgraves (vawd, 2009-08-25) · Strongest negative: United States v. McCoy (ca2, 2021-04-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" United States v. McCoy
2d Cir. · 2021 · signal: but see · confidence high
See, e.g., United States 13 v. Silverman, 449 F.2d 1341, 1343-44 (2d Cir. 1971) ("Silverman") ("the statute clearly 14 requires that a challenge on this ground be made at or before the v[oi]r dire"), cert. 15 denied, 405 U.S. 918 (1972); United States v. Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 16 1996), as amended (Nov. 6, 1996) ("once voir dire begins, Jury Selection Act challenges 17 are barred, even where the grounds for the challenge are discovered only later"), cert. 18 denied, 522 U.S. 1014 (1997); United States v. Candelaria-Silva, 166 F.3d 19, 31-32 (1st Cir. 39 1 1999) (same), cert…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Presgraves
W.D. Va. · 2009 · confidence medium
Id. at 439 (citing United States v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185, 186 (4th *776 Cir.1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) De Wit v. Firstar Corp.
N.D. Iowa · 1995 · confidence medium
Ass’n v. Touche Ross & Co., 782 F.2d 966, 970 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185, 186-87 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 , 102 S.Ct. 1991 , 72 L.Ed.2d 455 (1982); United States v. Kovic, 684 F.2d 512, 516 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 972 , 103 S.Ct. 304 , 74 L.Ed.2d 284 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. James Ned Grubb (2×)
4th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Webster II, 669 F.2d at 186.
cited Cited as authority (rule) South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
D.S.C. · 1993 · confidence medium
U.S. v. Webster, 669 F.2d at 186-187 (4th Cir.1982) (emphasis in original).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639 James F. Woodward v. Michael Dipalermo Maria Triggs, Secretary/treasurer, Yellow Bus Lines
D.C. Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
United States v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185, 186-87 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 , 102 S.Ct. 1991 , 72 L.Ed.2d 455 (1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639
D.C. Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
United States v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185, 186-87 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 , 102 S.Ct. 1991 , 72 L.Ed.2d 455 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Biaggi
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. Provenzano, 688 F.2d 194, 200 (3d Cir.) (“The fact that the union was harmed rather than benefitted [by its president’s acceptance of bribes to overlook collective bargaining violations] does not remove the conduct from RICO's ambit.”), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 , 103 S.Ct. 492 , 74 L.Ed.2d 634 (1982); United States v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185, 186-87 (4th Cir.1982) (on rehearing, reversing position on this issue taken in United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174 (4th Cir.1981), and holding that “The proper question should have been whether the affairs of the [e…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Carter
unknown court · 1984 · confidence medium
Id. at 187.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rex C. Cauble, Individually and Doing Business as Cauble Enterprises
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Hartley, 678 F.2d at 990-91 ; Welch, 656 F.2d at 1062 ; cf. United States v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185, 187 (4th Cir.) (modifying earlier opinion holding that enterprise’s affairs must be benefitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 , 102 S.Ct. 1991 , 72 L.Ed.2d 455 (1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. G. Cecil Hartley, Travis Dell and Treasure Isle, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
United States v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185, at 186 (4th Cir. 1982).
cited Cited "see" O'Rear v. American Family Life Assurance Co.
M.D. Fla. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir.1982). 15.
cited Cited "see" Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Finance Corp.
M.D. Fla. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. Webster, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir.1982). *1464 15.
cited Cited "see" Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V.
D. Maryland · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Welch, 656 F.2d 1039, 1061 (5th Cir.1981)." 669 F.2d at 186 . 48 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Larry D. Swan, A/K/A William Anderson, United States of America v. Barbara L. Swan, A/K/A Mary Anderson
4th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174 (4th Cir.1981), modified in part, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 (1982). 6 The Swans next contend that it was plain error for the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting the case to argue to the jury that the Swans' failure to file their returns was similar to the situation where one sharing an apartment with others fails to pay his or her share of the rent.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Ancel James Holland, A/K/A Tucky, A/K/A Tuckie, A/K/A Shorty
4th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 857 (1981), modified on other grounds, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 (1982).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Norman Henson, AKA Hun Bun
4th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174 (4th Cir.1981), modified in part, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir.1982).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Valenzuela
N.H. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174, 178 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 857 (1981), modified on other grounds, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 (1982) (where facts of affidavit indicate activity over protracted period, lapse of time from date of earlier facts is not necessarily an indication of stale probable cause).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Shipp
S.D.N.Y. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
United States v. Martino, 664 F.2d 860, 867 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 929 , 102 S.Ct. 1978 , 72 L.Ed.2d 445 (1982); see United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174, 178 (4th Cir.1981), modified on other grounds, 669 F.2d 185 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 , 102 S.Ct. 1991 , 72 L.Ed.2d 455 (1982); United States v. Hyde, 574 F.2d 856 , 864-65 (5th Cir.1978). 10 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Walter R. Webster, A/K/A Gangster, A/K/A Mr. G, United States of America v. Walter R. Webster, A/K/A Gangster, A/K/A Mr. G, A/K/A G, United States of America v. Richard Adams, A/K/A Mr. Richard, United States of America v. Norma Thompson, United States of America v. Boysie Ash, United States of America v. Victoria Wills, United States of America v. John v. Christian, A/K/A Wolf, United States of America v. Herbert Leon Johnson, A/K/A Herb
79-5204.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jan 14, 1982.
669 F.2d 185
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

669 F.2d 185

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Walter R. WEBSTER, a/k/a Gangster, a/k/a Mr. G, Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Walter R. WEBSTER, a/k/a Gangster, a/k/a Mr. G, a/k/a G, Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Richard ADAMS, a/k/a Mr. Richard, Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Norma THOMPSON, Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Boysie ASH, Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Victoria WILLS, Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
John V. CHRISTIAN, a/k/a Wolf, Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Herbert Leon JOHNSON, a/k/a Herb, Appellant.

Nos. 79-5204 and 79-5240 to 79-5246.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 9, 1981.
Decided Jan. 14, 1982.

Henry Jay Myerberg, Baltimore, Md. (Harold I. Glaser, Lawrence A. Arch, George L. Russell, Jr., Kenneth L. Thompson, Howard L. Cardin, Benjamin Lipsitz, Baltimore, Md., Mark Lee Phillips, Stanley H. Miller, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.

David B. Smith (Russell T. Baker, Jr., U. S. Atty., Glenn L. Cook, D. Christopher Ohly, Asst. U. S. Attys., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.

Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge:

[*~185]1

Our earlier decision, in United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174 (4th Cir. 1981) has been set down for rehearing by the panel. The rehearing has concentrated on the interpretation we had made of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (part of the RICO statute).

2

The desire for variety should be indulged with caution and restraint when explaining the meaning and reach of a statute. It would have been far preferable had the earlier panel opinion adhered strictly to the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) which makes it unlawful for any person employed by or associated with an enterprise "to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprises' affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity." Unfortunately, we introduced "promoted", "improved", "advanced" and "benefitted", as practical synonyms for "conducted", influenced, no doubt, by the consideration that the enterprise, the 1508 Club Tavern and Liquor store, was organized for profit.

3

We simply overlooked that even businesses out to make money may conduct their affairs for other purposes. The problem in the approach we took immediately surfaces in cases where the enterprise is governmental in nature, and almost universally not organized for profit. See United States v. Welch, 656 F.2d 1039, 1061 (5th Cir. 1981).

4

The proper question should have been whether the affairs of the 1508 Club were conducted through the pattern of racketeering activity, not whether they were benefitted or advanced or whether profit to the 1508 Club resulted. "Conducted", it is true, signifies repeated, even patterned carrying on of affairs. It may be doubted that an isolated incident amounts to "conduct". Having made that observation, we are nevertheless satisfied that the answer to the "conduct" question must here be given in the affirmative. We have reviewed the record again, and are satisfied that we correctly stated its contents when we said:

5

Evidence introduced at the trial tended to show that, by means of the telephone company's call-forwarding service, telephone calls to Webster's and Thompson's home telephone (which was tapped by court order) were frequently forwarded to the telephone at the 1508 Club; that Club facilities and personnel were used to accept and relay narcotics related messages; and that, on at least one occasion, a Club employee was asked by Webster to provide Club-owned drinks to one of Webster's narcotics customers who was waiting for drugs to be brought so that a transaction could take place.

6

United States v. Webster, 639 F.2d 174, 183 (4th Cir. 1981).

7

The evidence which the government has offered as sustaining the convictions under subsection (c) indicates that the facilities of the 1508 Club were regularly made available to, and put in the service of, the defendants' drug dealing business.

8

Id. 184.

[*~186]9

Even if the single provision of refreshment did not constitute "conduct", the regular and repeated acceptance and relay of messages did. Accordingly, the convictions of Webster and Thompson under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) are affirmed, and the earlier opinion, published at 639 F.2d 174 is modified to that extent. In all other respects the earlier opinion remains undisturbed.