WILLOUGHBY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• United States v. Vaccaro, 816 F.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1987)
  …ot constitute “a continuing course of criminal conduct.” The Travel Act statute is violated when interstate traveling is employed to further an unlawful “business enterprise.” United States v. Kaiser, 660 F. 2d 724, 731 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 956, 102 S.Ct. 1467, 71 L.Ed.2d 674 and 457 U.S. 1121, 102 S.Ct. 2935, 73 L.Ed.2d 1334 (1982). “Business enterprise” has been defined as “a continuous course of criminal conduct rather than sporadic or casual involvement in a proscribed activity.” Id.…
• United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
  …rise” essential to conviction at bench trial); United States v. Kaiser, 660 F. 2d 724, 731 (9th Cir.1981) (error to refuse to instruct the jury that it must find a continuous course of criminal conduct to convict on Travel Act counts), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 956, 102 S.Ct. 1467, 71 L.Ed.2d 674 (1982); cf. United States v. Gallo, 782 F. 2d 1191, 1195 (4th Cir.1986) (error to fail to give any definition of “unlawful activity”). The defendant did not, however, object at trial to this definition of “unlawful a…
• United States v. Douglass, 780 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1986)
  …998-99. That holding does not resolve the issue we must decide here— namely, what exactly constitutes an “act of travel” for purposes of the statute? Ample guidance is provided by United States v. Kaiser, 660 F. 2d 724 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 956, 102 S.Ct. 1467, 71 L.Ed.2d 674 (1982), overruled en banc on [*1478] other grounds, United States v. DeBright, 730 F. 2d 1255, 1259 (9th Cir.1984). In upholding defendants’ convictions for four separate violations of the Travel Act in Kaiser, we obs…