Criminal – Gang members convicted on multiple charges

Where three gang members were convicted on multiple charges arising from a conspiracy to commit and the commission of various violent crimes in retaliation for the killing of their gang leader, and the record largely supported the convictions, they were affirmed.

Background

Ronald Damione Jenkins, Japree Lortez Brooks and Malik Trevonte Newsome appeal different components of their convictions and sentences arising from a conspiracy to commit and the commission of various violent crimes in retaliation for a rival gang killing Brandon Leonard.

Enterprise

Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to show that the group the government termed “Brandon’s crew” constituted an association-in-fact enterprise for purposes of the violent crime in aid of racketeering activity, or VICAR, statute. In other words, they argue there’s insufficient evidence of structure, unity and common purpose. The court disagrees.

The evidence is legally sufficient for the jury to have found that there was “the requisite commonality of purpose between [individuals in the group] to give form to the associational enterprise charged.” Put another way, the evidence showed that defendants “conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs, not just their own affairs.”

Brooks argues that even if there was sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of an enterprise, there’s insufficient evidence to: show he was a member of that enterprise; demonstrate that he held a position within it or support that he engaged in any act to join, maintain or increase a position within it. And he argues that seeking revenge after a friend’s death demonstrates motive, and not that any of those acts were taken for the purpose of joining, maintaining or increasing any position within an enterprise. The court disagrees.

Newsome also contends that the record does not show that he knowingly entered into the charged conspiracy to maintain or increase a position within an enterprise. He suggests that evidence placing him at the Railroad on the night of Brandon’s death lacks credibility. But credibility determinations are squarely within the province of the factfinder, and the jury was entitled to credit that testimony

Jenkins

Jenkins challenges his conviction for VICAR attempted murder, which is based on the Feb. 8, 2019, attempted murder of rival gang member Shuntrel McNear. He contends that an enterprise no longer existed by February 2019 because, by then, Brandon had been deceased for some 14 months and most of the enterprise’s purported members had left town or were in prison and, in any event, were out of contact. He thus argues that the attempted killing—which involved just two of the original members of the enterprise—was an act not attributable to or part of any enterprise. The court disagrees.

The government’s evidence contained enough for a jury to find a commonality of purpose (to maintain dominance in Franklin against the 00s and avenge Brandon’s death), relationship (EJ and Jenkins) and duration (forming and reconstituting for members of the group to pursue that same purpose) to find that the “enterprise” labeled as Brandon’s crew continued through February 2019.

Brooks

Count Two charged Brooks with VICAR attempted murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(5) and (2), and Count Three charged him with unlawful discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (the VICAR attempted murder in Count Two), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and (2). Brooks challenges these convictions principally by arguing that the record does not establish his specific intent to kill anyone when he fired three rounds into the South Street residence. The court agrees.

There’s no evidence supporting a finding that “the immediate, direct, and necessary consequences” of Brooks’ firing at the residence would have been the murder of one or more individuals absent intervening events. Brooks’ convictions for Counts Two and Three are vacated, his sentence is vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Newsome

The jury was entitled to credit testimony that Newsome asked her to lie about being together on the relevant dates, and that testimony is sufficient to find each necessary element of witness tampering. The instructions then correctly recited the elements of the offense, the means of satisfying each element and what findings were necessary to convict. To the extent Newsome’s argument relies on a lack of evidence of threats or intimidation, he ignores that this element of this offense can also be satisfied upon proof of corrupt persuasion of a witness.

Newsome challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his 273-month sentence of imprisonment. The court rejects Newsome’s argument. The district court considered his non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence, explained why it was rejecting those arguments and why—in its view of the lengthy trial record—its sentence satisfied the § 3553(a) factors. Newsome’s sentence is also substantively reasonable.

Affirmed in part and reversed, vacated and remanded in part.

United States v. Jenkins Jr., Case Nos. 24-4220, 24-4221, 24-4236, March 12, 2026. 4th Cir. (Agee), from EDVA at Norfolk (Walker). Paul Graham Beers and Sicilia Englert for Appellants. Kristen Shannon Taylor for Appellee. VLW 026-2-092. 34 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-2-092
Virginia Lawyers Weekly