Pryba Et Al. v. United States, 498 U.S. 924 (1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Pryba Et Al. v. United States, 498 U.S. 924 (1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sweet v. United States (dc, 2000-05-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Sweet v. United States (2×)
D.C. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lang, 904 F.2d 618 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990).
discussed Cited "see" Salinas v. United States
SCOTUS · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Pryba, 900 F. 2d 748 , 760 (CA4), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 924 (1990); United States v. Kragness, 830 F. 2d 842, 860 (CA8 1987); United States v. Neapolitan, 791 F. 2d 489, 494-500 (CA7), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 940 (1986); United States v. Joseph, 781 F. 2d 549, 554 (CA6 1986); United States v. Adams, 759 F. 2d 1099, 1115-1116 (CA3), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 971 (1985); United States v. Tille, 729 F. 2d 615, 619 (CA9), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 845 (1984); United States v. Carter, 721 F. 2d 1514, 1529-1531 (CA11), cert. denied sub nom.
cited Cited "see" In Re American Honda Motor Co. Dealerships Litig.
D. Maryland · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 760 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Bergodere
1st Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Johnson, 873 F.2d 1137 , 1140 n. 3 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 304 , 112 L.Ed.2d 257 (1990). 5 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Bergodere
1st Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Johnson, 873 F.2d 1137 , 1140 n.3 ___ _____________ _______ (8th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 (1990). _____ ______ 5The jury convicted appellant on three counts, namely, possession of a firearm after a previous felony conviction (count 1), possession of heroin with intent to distribute (count 2), and using a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime (count 3).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Investment Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A Great Western Litho & Bindery, Donald P. Browning, California Publishers Liquidating Corporation, Michael Warner, Video Team, Inc. And Susan C. Colvin, United States of America v. California Publishers Liquidating Corp., Video Team, Inc., Donald P. Browning, and Michael Warner
5th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 755 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990) 23 Section 1462 makes "knowingly us[ing] any express company or other common carrier, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce--(a) any obscene ... motion picture film" punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years for a first offense. 18 U.S.C.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jean Joseph Deeb
11th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lang, 904 F.2d 618, 623 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Investment Enterprises, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 755 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990). 23 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Investment Enterprises, Inc.
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 755 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 (1990). 18 nature, scope, and proportionality of the use of the property in the offense. 18 U.S.C. §1467 (a)(3) (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. Meridian Towers Apartments, Inc.
D.D.C. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 760 (4th Cir.) (citing and following cases from the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 306 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990). 14 The analysis in these cases applies equally to the conduct or participation requirement.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Gregory M. Thomas
D.C. Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 760 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990); United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214, 1228 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Ferris Alexander
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 757 (4th Cir.) (no proportionality analysis required because defendants failed to proffer required information), cer t. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Claudette Atkins
8th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 905 F.2d 222 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 304 , 112 L.Ed.2d 257 (1990) (employees of the Division of Family Services could be struck since the employees might be overly sympathetic to the defendant); United States v. Miller, 939 F.2d 605, 607-09 (8th Cir.1991) (school teachers could be struck since they tend to be more forgiving and sympathetic).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Grice
Iowa · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Carlson, Iowa Practice § 252, at 68-69 (1979); see also State v. Boley, 456 N.W.2d 674, 679 (Iowa 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (under section 711.1 there is no requirement that a theft actually be committed).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Sarbello
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 756-57 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990) (sentence less severe than life imprisonment without parole does not trigger proportional analysis); United States v. Stern, 858 F.2d 1241, 1250 (7th Cir.1988); United States v. Horak, 833 F.2d at 1243 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
3rd Cir. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., United States v. Pryba, 900 F.2d 748, 756-57 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 305 , 112 L.Ed.2d 258 (1990) (sentence less severe than life imprisonment without parole does not trigger proportional analysis); United States v. Stern, 858 F.2d 1241, 1250 (7th Cir.1988); United States v. Horak, 833 F.2d at 1243 . 34 On the other hand, in seeming tension with the facial mandate of the statute, Fed.R.Crim.P. 31(e) requires the jury to determine the extent of criminal forfeitures, suggesting the propriety of partial forfeitures under the statute.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dennis E. Pryba, Barbara A. Pryba, Educational Books, Inc. and Jennifer G. Williams
v.
United States
89-1902.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 17, 1990.
498 U.S. 924
White.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Lead Opinion

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Justice White,

dissenting.

One of the questions presented in this case is the nature of the agreement necessary to sustain a conviction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) conspiracy statute, 18 U. S. C. § 1962(d). Section 1962(d) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c)” of §1962. Here, petitioners were convicted under that statute for conspiring to violate § 1962(a), which provides in relevant part:

“It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity ... to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”

[*925] Title 18 U. S. C. § 1961(5) defines the term “pattern of racketeering activity” to require at least two acts of racketeering activity.

The trial court in this case instructed the jury that to convict petitioners of RICO conspiracy, the Government had to prove that “ ‘each defendant agreed to personally commit or aid and abet two or more acts of racketeering in violation of Section 1962(a) or that each defendant agreed that another coconspirator would commit two or more acts of racketeering in violation of 1962(a).’” 900 F. 2d 748, 760 (CA4 1990) (emphasis added). In affirming petitioners’ convictions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit joined a majority of Courts of Appeals in holding that a conviction for RICO conspiracy does not require that the defendant personally agree to commit two or more predicate acts of racketeering; rather, it is sufficient if the defendant agrees to the commission of the predicate acts by another co-conspirator. See ibid.

As the Fourth Circuit acknowledged, ibid., two Courts of Appeals have adopted a contrary view, holding that a RICO conspiracy conviction requires that the defendant have agreed to personally commit two or more predicate acts. See United States v. Ruggiero, 726 F. 2d 913, 921 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Rabito v. United States, 469 U. S. 831 (1984); United States v. Winter, 663 F. 2d 1120, 1136 (CA1 1981), cert. denied, 460 U. S. 1011 (1983). I have voted in the past to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue. See Adams v. United States, 474 U. S. 971 (1985) (dissenting opinion). As I noted there, if the majority view is correct, “Congress’ intent is being frustrated in those circuits which adhere to the narrower view of RICO conspiracy.” Id., at 973. On the other hand, if the minority view is correct, “defendants are being exposed to conviction for behavior Congress did not intend to reach under § 1962(d).” Ibid. To resolve the conflict, I would grant certiorari, limited to Question 5 presented in the petition for certiorari.