United States of America v. Fredrick Thomas, aka 1Stunna

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FREDRICK THOMAS, aka 1Stunna,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10000
D.C. No.
2:12-cr-00004-APG-GWF-27
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and PETERSON,*** District
Judge.
Defendant Fredrick Thomas appeals his conviction of one count of
participating in the conduct of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
FILED
AUG 12 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

("RICO") enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), and one count of RICO
conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Reviewing de novo the
sufficiency of the indictment, United States v. Olander, 572 F.3d 764, 766 (9th Cir.
2009), we affirm.
1. We assume, without deciding, that the government was required to set
forth, in the indictment, more than just the elements of the offense. See United
States v. Woodruff, 50 F.3d 673, 676 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Generally, an indictment is
sufficient if it sets forth the elements of the charged offense so as to ensure the
right of the defendant not to be placed in double jeopardy and to be informed of the
offense charged."). Here, "read in its entirety, construed according to common
sense, and interpreted to include facts which are necessarily implied," United
States v. Hinton, 222 F.3d 664, 672 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted), the indictment sufficiently alleges that Defendant participated in the
RICO enterprise. Defendant was a "member" of the organization. To become a
member, he was required "to be formally vouched for by at least two other
members in good standing." Members collaborate online "to share information and
to solicit and recruit other members to engage in activities, including but not
limited to criminal activities, in order to achieve the common objectives of the
enterprise." Acting "in concert" with other members of the RICO enterprise,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Defendant’s criminal activities in furtherance of the enterprise "include, but are not
limited to, unlawful transfer and use of a means of identification, and possession of
fifteen (15) or more counterfeit and unauthorized access devices." Those
allegations, read along with the indictment in its entirety, sufficiently establish that
Defendant "participated in the operation or management of the enterprise." Reves
v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 183 (1993).
2. The indictment sufficiently alleged a domestic application of the RICO
statute with sufficient ties to U.S. commerce. See RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European
Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090, 2105–06 (2016). For example, "[m]embers and associates
of the Carder.su organization operate principally in Las Vegas, Nevada." Members
dumped stolen credit and debit card data "from the United States," sold personal
data stolen from American victims, manufactured and sold counterfeit driver’s
licenses to members, and used protected drop sites in the District of Nevada to
protect the criminal enterprise.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --