United States v. Russell Carrington, 700 F. App'x 224

Background

From 2007–2013 members of the Black Guerilla Family (BGF) operated a criminal enterprise inside the Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) with the assistance of corrupt correctional officers and employees who smuggled drugs, cell phones, and contraband and facilitated violence and payments.
A federal grand jury charged BGF members and BCDC employees under a multi-count indictment including a RICO conspiracy count (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)) that listed six predicate racketeering offenses (A–F) and 161 overt acts.
Eight defendants proceeded to trial; after a 20‑day trial and four days of deliberation five defendants (two inmates and three employees) were convicted of RICO conspiracy and related offenses.
Trial: the district court initially gave instructions that arguably conflated the A–F predicate racketeering acts with the 161 overt acts, then received a jury note, modified the instruction (initially at government suggestion), and ultimately reinstructed correctly requiring unanimity as to at least two A–F racketeering offenses and provided a revised verdict form; defendants declined extra closing arguments.
Post-trial: appellants appealed, principally arguing prejudicial jury instructions; other issues on appeal included suppression of text messages (Paylor) and alleged sentencing factfinding errors (Paylor and Young). The Fourth Circuit affirmed convictions, affirmed Paylor’s sentence, vacated Young’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction on RICO predicate acts	District court’s initial instruction conflated 6 predicate racketeering acts (A–F) with 161 overt acts, allowing conviction on non‑predicate or noncriminal overt acts; requires new trial.	Court ultimately corrected instruction, required unanimity on at least two A–F predicates, and took curative measures (reinstruction, new verdict form); any confusion cured.	No reversible error: final instructions were correct, jury complied, verdict form shows unanimous findings of at least two A–F predicates; no new trial.
Suppression of Paylor’s text messages	Search was effectively warrantless because the warrant had expired before FBI completed forensic review and recovered texts; suppression required.	Rule 41(e)(2)(B) treats ESI warrants as executed when media is seized; delay in review after lawful seizure does not invalidate warrant execution; alternatively any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence.	No relief: seizure/execution rules permit later off‑site review; even if error, admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Paylor’s sentencing fact disputes	District court failed to resolve factual disputes about drug quantity and abuse‑of‑trust enhancement.	PSR contained specific findings; district court expressly adopted PSR findings which satisfy Rule 32(i)(3)(B).	Denied: adopting PSR that contained the contested findings satisfied the court’s obligation; Paylor’s sentence affirmed (with minor variance).
Young’s sentencing fact disputes	District court failed to resolve disputed drug‑quantity and role‑in‑offense facts; PSR deferred resolution to the court so adoption alone insufficient.	Court adopted PSR and imposed a different role enhancement level (two levels rather than four).	Vacated and remanded: district court did not resolve disputed facts as required by Rule 32(i)(3)(B); resentencing required.

Key Cases Cited

Mouzone v. United States, 687 F.3d 207 (4th Cir.) (RICO conspiracy requires agreement that at least two racketeering acts would be committed)
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (RICO conspiracy does not require proof of overt acts)
Cornell v. United States, 780 F.3d 616 (4th Cir.) (unanimity requirement and sufficiency of predicate‑act findings for RICO conspiracy)
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (searches of cell phones generally require a warrant)
Yanez‑Marquez v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 434 (4th Cir.) (warrant execution timing issues relevant to Fourth Amendment analysis)
United States v. Moye, 454 F.3d 390 (4th Cir.) (presumption that juries follow curative/reinstructive directions)
United States v. Huart, 735 F.3d 972 (7th Cir.) (Rule 41 warrants for ESI are executed at seizure; later review permitted)
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210 (4th Cir.) (harmless‑error standard for constitutional errors at trial)
Flores‑Alvarado v. United States, 779 F.3d 250 (4th Cir.) (adoption of PSR can satisfy district court’s obligation to resolve contested sentencing facts)
Bolden v. United States, 325 F.3d 471 (4th Cir.) (district court must make findings on controverted matters to allow appellate review)