Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Robert Zeichick appeals his conviction following a jury trial for conspiracy to collect an extension of credit through extortionate means, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894. Zeichick contends that his conviction is barred by the five-year statute of limitations because the evidence was insufficient to establish an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy within the statutory period. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Sufficient evidence to support a conviction exists if "a reasonable jury, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, could have found the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each essential element of the crime charged." United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.2d 774, 777 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 179 (1989) (citation omitted); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

"The elements of a criminal conspiracy include: (1) an illegal objective; (2) an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish that objective; (3) one or more overt acts in furtherance thereof; and (4) the requisite intent.... Proof of the act must be established within the period of limitations." United States v. Andreen, 628 F.2d 1236, 1248 (9th Cir. 1980) (citation ommitted).

Here, Zeichick argues that the government failed to establish the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy between June 23, 1983 and June 23, 1988, the day the indictment was filed. At trial, Craig Fiato, Zeichick's co-conspirator, testified for the government. He described the loanshark scheme where Zeichick and other co-conspirators lent money to many customers at extremely high interest rates. Fiato testified that the scheme lasted through 1983. To support Fiato's testimony, the government introduced thirteen tape recorded conversations between Zeichick and his co-conspirators. The taped conversations occurred between June 24, 1983 and July 6, 1983. The conversations generally involved collecting money from customers and evading detection by law enforcement officers.

Zeichick argues that the conversations discussed future acts and no evidence established that the acts actually occurred. Nevertheless, Fiato's testimony and the taped conversations indicate that outstanding loans to numerous customers were in existence after June 23, 1983. As late as July 5, 1983, Zeichick was recorded as saying he had met with a customer who was delinquent in his payments.¹  The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient to support the jury's finding that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy during the statutory period. See United States v. Thomas, 887 F.2d 1341, 1348 (9th Cir. 1989) (evidence sufficient to allow jury to infer existence of conspiracy).

AFFIRMED.