Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Eddie Martin Rodeman appeals his conviction of conspiracy to commit extortion and extortion on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion of guilt. He also appeals the district court's imposition of a special penalty assessment fee. We affirm.

There is sufficient evidence to support the convictions. To prove conspiracy, the prosecution must show "(1) an agreement (2) to engage in criminal activity and (3) one or more overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.2d 774, 777 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 179 (1989). See also United States v. Monroe, 552 F.2d 860, 862 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 972 (1977). The record clearly demonstrates that the prosecution did so.

On the extortion count, Rodeman admits that Philip Bucalo, his co-defendant at trial, committed the extortion. We have held that, "defendants [can] be convicted of substantive offenses if they were parties to an unlawful conspiracy and the offenses charged were in furtherance of [the conspiracy]." United States v. Johnson, 886 F.2d 1120, 1123 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 1830 (1990) (citing Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645 (1946)). Since there is sufficient evidence both of the commission of the crime of extortion and of Rodeman's participation in the conspiracy to commit that crime, there is sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for the underlying substantive offense of extortion.

Finally, appellant's request to reverse the imposition of the special penalty assessment fee is denied. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the special penalty assessment fee provided for in 18 U.S.C. § 3013. See United States v. Munoz-Flores, 58 U.S.L.W. 4563, 4568 (U.S. May 22, 1990), reversing, 863 F.2d 654 (9th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.