United States of America v. GELEAN MARK also known as Kerwin

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 09-4742
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GELEAN MARK
also known as
Kerwin,
Appellant
Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands,
Division of St. Thomas and St. John
(Crim. No. 3-09-cr-00020-001)
District Judge: Hon. Curtis T. Gomez, Chief Judge
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
Monday, December 13, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Circuit Judge, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 29, 2010 )
OPINION
McKEE, Chief Judge.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Gelean Mark appeals the district court=s order denying his motion to dismiss the
indictment against him. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
Because we write primarily for the parties, and because the district court has set
forth the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not repeat them here. Mark
appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. He argues
that the indictment violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution.
U.S. Const. Amend V.
Mark incorrectly argues he has been charged with a Continuing Criminal
Enterprise under 21 U.S.C. § 848 in this indictment. See Appellant’s Br. at 15, 20. The
indictment in this criminal case charges him with violating the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. See Jt. Appx. 151-157
(indictment).
We have previously held that “[t]he language and legislative history of RICO
indicates little doubt that Congress, in enacting RICO, sought to allow the separate
prosecution and punishment of predicate offenses and a subsequent RICO offense.”
United States v. Grayson, 795 F.2d 278, 282 (3d. Cir. 1986). Therefore, “successive
prosecutions for a RICO offense and its underlying predicate offenses are not inconsistent
with the Double Jeopardy clause.” Id. at 283.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court=s orders substantially for the reasons set
for in the district court=s Memorandum and Opinion without further elaboration.

-- 2 of 2 --