United States v. Ralph Godoy, AKA Richard G. Wood

Ralph Godoy appeals his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (1976) (RICO) and 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) (1976) (possession and sale of methaqualone). He also appeals the district court’s order forfeiting certain properties pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (1976). The Government challenges the district court’s denial of its motion to correct the forfeiture order, made pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 35. This court ordered consolidation of the two appeals.

Godoy was indicted by a federal grand jury on October 3, 1979. The indictment sought forfeiture of six parcels of California real estate under RICO: (1) the Ralph Brothers Market and Pharmacy, (2) an unimproved lot in Ventura County, (3) commercial property in Van Nuys, (4) commercial property in Mission Hills, (5) the Whiskey Creek Nightclub, and (6) residential property in Los Angeles. Shortly after arraignment, the district court issued an order restraining disposition of the properties during litigation, as is provided by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1955 (d) and 1963(b) (1976). On this appeal, Godoy concedes that each of these parcels was acquired with the proceeds of his racketeering activity.

On November 19, 1979, Godoy was convicted by a jury on all…

I concur in parts IA and II of the majority opinion, but not in part IB, because I conclude that the majority’s holding affirming the forfeiture of Godoy’s commercial property at Van Nuys and Mission Hills is inconsistent with this court’s opinion in United States v. Marubeni America Corp., 611 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 1980).

In Marubeni, we held that Congress did not intend to provide for forfeiture of all income from racketeering activities when it enacted RICO. Rather, Congress’ forfeiture scheme is as follows:

Id. at 769. Thus, the fact that Godoy acquired property with income from racketeering activity did not by itself warrant forfeiture of that property. Godoy’s property interests were not properly forfeited unless they could fairly be characterized as interests in an “enterprise.”

At least some of these properties housed active businesses. However, the majority does not suggest that those tenants are involved with Godoy in a RICO “enterprise” since Godoy was not associated with them in any way. Neither does the opinion imply that Godoy’s property interests afforded him a “source of influence over” the tenant *89 businesses. See 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (a)(2). It is quite clear that…

678 F.2d 84 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph GODOY, aka Richard G. Wood, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 79-1788, 80-1600. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued Sept. 19, 1980 and March 24, 1981. Submitted March 24, 1981. Decided May 24, 1982. S. R. Balash, Jr., Santa Barbara, Cal., for defendant-appellant. David B. Smith, Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., argued for plaintiff-appellee; William J. Sayers, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., on brief. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before POOLE, NELSON and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. NELSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Ralph Godoy appeals his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (1976) (RICO) and 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) (1976) (possession and sale of methaqualone). He also appeals the district court's order forfeiting certain properties pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (1976). The Government challenges the district court's denial of its motion to correct the forfeiture order, made pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. This court ordered consolidation of the two appeals. 2 Godoy was indicted by a federal grand jury on October 3, 1979. The…