The appellant challenges his convictions for racketeering, conspiracy to racketeer, and conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances. Sufficient evidence existed for a rational jury to convict on all three counts. Ex parte interviews with the jurors, conducted with counsel's permission, do not constitute per se error. Appellant's sentence as a career offender was not erroneous as he had a prior conviction for injuring a child which constitutes a crime of violence under the last clause of the Section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guideline, i.e., the residual clause. The convictions and sentences are affirmed.
United States v. Nieto
July 2, 2013