WPCP  eH`ths9jtFDqZt x_-ºFf9a]VitR[) ,l h{sȼkTgczϽz4S$mTg|q#R7ekfˬ@ŎhR6nhqsLJ#4qXT?J RO#%`bO oҹm\0  a\=Cq(֙FKr#< % 0 D 0(G U:o 0 UNo UF ^  w 4 ' 6 m8 NO MQ EU fW aY 0:m U6 M U> 01 0=P U* 0 0> 0 0 0; 0a 0P 0 09 0 02 0 B 0 0_ 0  0k 0q B*8 D3b C D+ 0 0 06 0 0: 0h 0Fh(t 0C 0( AM!UBT!b!U0!!M$M$$M& 0U&T&E8,2}011 063 04 0558 0Q:1; 0< 0= 0w> 0N? 0C"@ 0e@ 0MIM6O6O6OLOFbOHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2X$ !    =-XXdd=    0  vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular},s X,N~2Ps3|xU TABLE A42Emphasis<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman0.Normal<:Definition T%2A`Arial<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS d6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I./4$ ** ddI  B    ?%2A`Arial?90/*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d----'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI./4$** ddI  B    ?%2A`Arial?90/*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2C$ !  ($8:;0A<< c<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -<\( 9Z+Courier   X$  =%XXdd=    3    _ԀAccordingtothegovernment'stranscriptofthesurveillance  tape,_Folco_Ԁmadeasecondreferenceto_Regine_,whodroveabeige x Infinity,inthisconversation:"Youprobablyseenthecar.Ah,a @ beige_Infin_ԄInfinity."_Perrotta_Ԁdisputesthisinterpretationof X thetape,hearinginsteadareferencetoabeigecouch.  X$  =%XXdd=    5    ___Ԁ_Perrotta_'sversionofthisconversationdenotesas  unintelligible_Folco_'sfinalremarks,transcribedbythegovernment x as"Ifheblowsup.Hm.[Unintelligible]he'sdead."*+ (_2623  .. J X$  =%XXdd=    9    _ԀSee2McCormickonEvidence212(5thed.1999)("Since  'seeingisbelieving,'anddemonstrativeevidenceappealsdirectly x tothesensesofthetrieroffact,itistodayuniversallyfelt @ thatthiskindofevidencepossessesanimmediacyandrealitywhich X endowitwithparticularlypersuasiveeffect."(footnoteomitted)).   Ofcourse,McCormickisnottheauthorofthisphrase,whichthe  SecondCircuithasdescribedas"[a]proverbcurrenteveninthe `  daysofancientRome."CocaColaCo.v.TropicanaProducts,Inc., ( x 690F.2d312,314(2dCir.1982);seealsoJohnsonv.United  @ States,162F.2d562,563(9thCir.1947)("wellknownmaxim");    O'Learyv._Liggett_ԀDrugCo.,150F.2d656,666(6thCir.1945)    ("commonsenseadage").ButseeFinleyv.MarathonOilCo.,75 H   F.3d1225,1231(7thCir.1996)("misleadingoldsaw"). ; X$  =%XXdd=    1    _ԀTheconversationsquotedinthisopinionwereobtainedby  meansofelectroniclisteningdevicesinstalledin_Folco_'shomeand x awiretapon_Folco_'stelephone.(Thegovernmentalsoinstalleda @ hiddencameraoutside_Folco_'shome.)Thegovernmenttranscribed X theseconversationstoassistthejuryinunderstandingthe   surveillancetapes.Althoughitwasthetapes,notthe  transcripts,thatwereadmittedintoevidence,ourreviewwas `  limitedtothetranscripts.Atcertainpointsinthetranscripts ( x _Perrotta_Ԁdisputesthegovernment'sversionofwhatwassaid,andwe  @ havenotedthosedisputes. ( X$  =%XXdd=    2    _Ԁ_Regine_Ԁalsohadapreexistingdebtto_Folco_Ԁof$80,000. } X$  =%XXdd=    4    ݀_ Perrotta_ 'sversionofthisexchangedenotesas  unintelligible_ Folco_ 'sfinalfivewords("Tooktenoffhim, x remember.")*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    X$  =%XXdd=    6    _ԀThejurycouldhavesointerpretedthefollowingstatement  by_Lato_Ԁto_Folco_:"Took10offof_Perrotta_.BREAK(2seconds) x [unintelligible]were,wereallthetimesayingit'soverforus. @ Theytookashotatushuh.Iwaswithhimlastnight.Hecallme X up.Hesaiduh,willyoucomebyandtakemeforaride?"  X$  =%XXdd=    7    _ԀAttrial,_Perrotta_Ԁobjectedtothe_Folco_Ԅ_Lato_Ԁconversation  onhearsaygrounds.Hedoesnotpursuehishearsayargumenton x appeal.*>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    X$  =%XXdd=    11    _ԀThejustificationfortheseizureofthebillycluband  brass_knuckes_Ԁisevenmorestraightforward:theseitemsareillegal x inRhodeIsland.*;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  -)1dxd-)2dxd\( 9Z+&Courier Regular ? X$  =%XXdd=    8    _ԀOnappeal,_Perrotta_Ԁdoesnotrenewhisobjectiontothe  testimonyaboutthebrassknuckles.      < X$  =%XXdd=    10    _ԀThepossessionofbrassknucklesandbillyclubsisillegal  inRhodeIsland.Thejurors,however,werenotsoadvised. !  _ TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !Xy5XXX5XXy5     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals@5  FortheFirstCircuit z@X1Xz     `     h     A') ` dE< ` A      `     h      p      x    No.002427 K     `    @#UNITEDSTATES,  G     `     h @&Appellee,   @tt)v. O  @xx!EDWARDT.PERROTTA, K  @ Defendant,Appellant.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8 @l l FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND 4 @ [Hon.ErnestC.Torres,U.S.DistrictJudge]  A') ` dE<;` A < @'Before !q   @@((Lipez,CircuitJudge,  Coffin,SeniorCircuitJudge,   andBarbadoro,*DistrictJudge. y! A') ` dE<$!` A %!u#       DavidN.Cicillineforappellant.  "Z%   DonaldC.Lockhart,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,with #' whomMargaretE.Curran,UnitedStatesAttorney,andJamesH. $( Leavey,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,wereonbrieffor b% ) appellee. 8&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '^"+'^"  SIr'", @@37381@@SMay6,2002 H(#.  RHC)n$/" @@37381 @@ R(r'"0  (  * !  ______________ *J&1    *OftheDistrictofNewHampshire,sittingbydesignation. + '2?   8=%=XXdd8>*,X` XX*   ?X%XXX1 ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .EdwardPerrottawasconvictedof  conspiringwithRoccoFolcoandotherstomakeextortionate  extensionsofcredit,aidingandabettingFolcoinmaking  p extortionateextensionsofcredit,andfinancingextortionate   extensionsofcreditmadebyFolco.Heappealsonanumberof @  grounds.Unconvincedbyhisarguments,weaffirmhisconvictions.       I.Background  `   ` InAprilof1995,Perrottaloaned$50,000toFolcoatan @  interestrateofonepercentperweek(52percentperyear).   Folco,inturn,loanedthe$50,000toAnthonyRegineataninterest ` rateoftwopercentperweek(104percentperyear).UnderRhode @ Islandlaw,annualinterestratesinexcessof21percentarenot  legallyenforceable.Reginetestified,however,thathebelieved ` "somethingwouldhappentomeortomyfamily"ifhefailedtomake  timelypaymentstoFolco. 0  ` InMarchof1999agrandjuryindictedPerrotta,Folco,  andseveralothersonvariousracketeeringrelatedcharges.The P  indictmentchargedthatPerrottahadfinancedextortionate 0" extensionsofcreditfromFolcotoRegine,inviolationof p!$ 18U.S.C.893.Mostofthedefendantspledguilty.InMarchof #P& 2000thegrandjuryreturnedasupercedingindictmentwhich $( includedtheoriginalcountagainstPerrottaandalsochargedthat  &p!* hehadconspiredwithFolcoandotherstomakeextortionate '#, extensionsofcredittoRegine,inviolationof18U.S.C.892, @)$.  andthatPerrottahadaidedandabettedFolcoinmaking * &0 extortionateextensionsofcredit,inviolationof18U.S.C.892  and2(thegeneralaidingandabettingstatute). @   ` Perrottamovedtodismisstheindictmentontheground   that893kX%XX?X%Ԁ(proscribingtheadvancementofmoneytoaperson"with `  reasonablegroundstobelieve"thatpersonintendstouseitto  @ makeanextortionateextensionofcredit)#?X%XXkX%#Ԁencouragesthejuryto    useastandardofprooflessexactingthan"beyondareasonable `  doubt,"inviolationoftheDueProcessClauseoftheConstitution.   Thedistrictcourtdeniedhismotion.Perrottaalsomovedto 0  suppressweaponsseizedfromhishomeandcarwhichhadnotbeen  describedinthesearchwarrant,andthatmotionwasalsodenied. P Inaddition,Perrottaobjectedunsuccessfully(inamotionin 0 limineandattrial)totheadmissionintoevidenceoftheseized p weapons.AfterthejuryconvictedPerrottaonallcharges,the P courtdeniedhisearliermotionsforajudgmentofacquittaland  sentencedPerrottato37monthsinprison.  p  ` kX%XX?X%Onappeal,Perrottaarguesthattheevidencewas   insufficienttosupporthisconvictions,thatthedistrictcourt @" erredinadmittingintoevidenceweaponsseizedduringasearchof  $ hishomeandcar,thattheseizureoftheweaponsviolatedthe `"& FourthAmendment,andthat18U.S.C.893invitesconfusioninthe #@( applicationofthe"beyondareasonabledoubt"standardandis % * thereforeunconstitutional.#?X%XXkX%u# '`",    (#. II.SufficiencyoftheEvidence    A.TheCharges    ` Under18U.S.C.892,"Whoevermakesanyextortionate p extensionofcredit,orconspirestodoso,shallbefined...or  P imprisonednotmorethan20years,orboth."Federallawalso   proscribes"willfullyadvanc[ing]money...toanyperson,with  p  reasonablegroundstobelievethatitistheintentionofthat   persontousethemoney...forthepurposeofmaking @  extortionateextensionsofcredit...."18U.S.C.893.An   "extortionateextensionofcredit"is ` 8 ` [a]nyextensionofcreditwithrespectto @ whichitistheunderstandingofthecreditor  andthedebtoratthetimeitismadethat  delayinmakingrepaymentorfailuretomake H repaymentcouldresultintheuseofviolence ` orothercriminalmeanstocauseharmtothe ( person,reputation,orpropertyofanyperson. ` x` x 18U.S.C.891(6).kX%XX?X%Recognizingthatdirectevidenceofthe 0 understandingofthepartiesconcerningtheconsequencesofdelayed  repaymentornonrepaymentmaybedifficulttoobtain,Congress P  enumeratedfourfactorswhich,ifallpresent,wouldconstitute 0" "primafacieevidencethattheextensionofcreditwas p!$ extortionate."18U.S.C.892(b).Thefactorsare"(1)that #P& repaymentisunenforceablethroughciviljudicialprocess;(2)that $( theloanrequiresinterestgreaterthan45%peryear;(3)thatthe  &p!* loanexceeds$100;and(4)thatthedebtorreasonablybelievesthat '#, thelendereitherhasused[extortionatemeans]tocollectother @)$. debtsorhasareputationfordoingso."UnitedStatesv.Zannino, * &0 895F.2d1,11(1stCir.1990)(summarizing18U.S.C.892(b)).#?X%XXkX%##  `,'2  ` InsteadofallegingthatPerrotta'sloantoFolcowas  extortionate,thegovernmenttriedtoimplicatePerrottaasa @ participantinFolco'sextortionateloantoRegine.CountOneof   theindictmentchargedthatPerrottahadconspiredwithFolcoto `  makeextortionateextensionsofcredittoRegine,inviolationof  @ 18U.S.C.892.Towinaconvictiononthiscount,thegovernment    hadtoprovethatPerrottaandFolcoagreedandintendedthatFolco `  wouldmakeanextortionateextensionofcredittoRegine(thatis,   thatReginewouldunderstandthatFolcowould,ifnecessary,resort 0  toviolenceorothercriminalmeanstocollect).UnitedStatesv.  EscobardeJesus,187F.3d148,175(1stCir.1999)("Toprovethe P elementsofaconspiracy,thegovernmentmustshowbeyonda 0 reasonabledoubtthatthedefendantandoneormorecoconspirators p intendedtoagreeand...tocommitthesubstantivecriminal P offensewhichwastheobjectoftheirunlawfulagreement."  (internalquotationmarksomitted)).  p  ` CountThreechargedthatPerrottahadaidedandabetted   FolcoinmakingextortionateextensionsofcredittoRegine,in @" violationof18U.S.C.892and2.Towinaconvictiononthis  $ count,thegovernmentwasrequiredtoprovethatPerrottaknewthat `"& Folco'sextensionsofcredittoReginewereextortionateandthat #@( PerrottaintendedtoassistFolcoinmakingtheextortionateloans. % * SeeUnitedStatesv.RosarioDiaz,202F.3d54,62(1stCir.2000) '`", (tosupportaconvictionforaidingandabetting,thegovernment (#. mustprove,inadditiontothecommissionoftheoffensebythe 0*%0 principal,thatthedefendant"consciouslysharedtheprincipal's +'2 knowledgeoftheunderlyingcriminalact,andintendedtohelpthe  principal."). @  ` CountTwochargedPerrottawithfinancingextortionate   extensionsofcreditfromFolcotoRegineinviolationof18U.S.C. `  893.Towinaconvictiononthiscount,thegovernmenthadto  @ establishthatPerrottahadadvancedmoneytoFolcowith    "reasonablegroundstobelieve"thatFolcowouldusethemoneyto `  makeanextortionateextensionofcredit.Id.Ifweconcludein   evaluatingtheevidencethatitwassufficienttoestablishthat 0  PerrottaknewofFolco'sextortionatepractices,wenecessarily  alsoconcludethathehadreasonablegroundstobelievethatFolco P wouldemploysuchpractices. 0 Ѐ ` Perrottadoesnotdenyhavingloaned$50,000toFolco,or p thatFolcothenloanedthe$50,000toRegine.NordoeshedisputekX%XX?X% P thegovernment'sclaimthatFolco'sloanof$50,000toReginewas  extortionate.#?X%XXkX%q4#ԀHissolecontentionisthattheevidencewas  p insufficient"tosupportafindingthatMr.Perrottaknewofthe   intentionofMr.Folcotoemployviolenceinhiscollection @" efforts."  $  B.FolcoasLoanShark  `"&  ` InweighingPerrotta'schallengetothesufficiencyof @$( theevidenceagainsthim,weviewtheevidenceinthelightmost % !* favorabletotheverdict,anddrawallreasonableinferencesin `'", favoroftheverdict.UnitedStatesv.Benjamin,252F.3d1,5 (@$. (1stCir.2001).TherewasampleevidenceattrialthatFolcowas *%0 aloanshark,includinganotebookinwhichFolcohadrecordedthe ,`'2 principalamount,interestrate,andpaymentscheduleofovera  dozendebtsowedtohim.TheinterestFolcochargedontheseloans @ wastwotothreepercentperweek.Therewasextensiveevidence   thatitwasFolco'spracticetouseviolenceandthreatsof `  violencetocollectdebts.Forexample,FolcoexplainedtoGary  @ Cedroni(aFolcoassociate)thatoneofhisdebtcollectors,who    had"justgotoutofthecan"andwas"halffuckingnuts,"would `  "crack"adebtorinorderto"scarehimenough"tosecurepayment.G #  1      ׀   Inasecondconversation,FolcotoldCedronithatoneofhisdebt 0  collectorshad"cracked[adebtor]onthemouth"onFolco'sbehalf  andsaid"'Youbetterhavethemoneybysixo'clockorelse.'"In P athirdconversation,GeorgeMelillo(anotherFolcoassociate) 0 indicatedtoFolcothatthenexttimeheencounteredacertain p debtor,Melillowould"smashhiminthemouth...[k]nockhimout P cold."Folcosuggestedthatthedebtorbewarnedthatifpayment  wasnotmadewithinaweek,heandhisfatherwouldget"a  p beating."Thesurveillancetapescontainedseveralotheraccounts   ofFolco'sextortionatetechniques. @"    $ C.TheTransactions    ` OnApril22,1995,FolcoagreedtoloanRegine$25,000at  aninterestrateoftwopercentperweek.Regineneededthismoney  p topayoffotherloansharkswhowerecharginghimevenhigher   ratesofinterest.H #  2      ׀FolcotoldReginethathewouldgetthemoney @  fromathirdparty,whoturnedouttobePerrotta,andRegine    expressedhisunderstandingthatFolcowould"chargemeapoint," `  thatis,onepercentperweek,ontopoftheinterestthethird @  party(Perrotta)wouldbechargingFolco.    ` OnApril24,FolcotoldCedronithathehadsaidto"the ` oldman"(Perrottawas52yearsoldin1995)thathe"might  need...50,000more."FolcoreportedthathehadaskedPerrotta 0 "whoamIgonnagotoifIneedthatkindofmoney?",and"theold  man"hadresponded:"Me!Cometome....I'llgiveyouanything P youwant."Thatsameday,PerrottatelephonedFolco,andthe 0 followingconversationensued: p 8 ` Perrotta:Hey,Igotyouaputterforya.P ` x` x Ѐ ! 8 ` Folco:Yeah."` x` x 8 ` Perrotta:Doyouwantmetobringitover  !p$ tomorrow?!8%` x` x 8 ` Folco:Yeah.x#'` x` x DTheyagreedthatPerrottawoulddeliverthe"putter"at8:30the %X ) nextmorning.AlsoonApril24,FolcotoldRegine"[o]neguyis &!+ gonnagiveme25G'stomorrowmorning."Folcoalsoindicatedthat ((x#- hecouldgetRegineanadditional$25,000inthenearfuture. )%/  ` At8:19a.m.onApril25,FolcotoldRegine(by  telephone)"thatguy'scomingateightthirty....He'sgonna @ bringmethatpackage."PerrottaarrivedatFolco'shomeat   8:33, withoutagolfputter.PerrottaaskedFolco,"Youwantto `  countit?"Folcoreplied,"No,no,I'lllethim[presumably  @ Regine]countit....Thereis25there?"@ #  3      ׀Perrottaindicated    thattherewas.Folcoexplainedhisunderstandingofthetermsof `  theloan:"that'llbe250[onepercentof$25,000)I'llgiveyou   everyTuesday."Perrottaindicatedhisassent. 0   ` ThreeminutesafterPerrottadeparted,Reginearrivedat  Folco'sresidence.HethankedFolcoandexplainedthathewould P "takeit[the$25,000]to...Joe,"anotherloansharktowhom 0 Reginewasindebtedatanevenhigherrateofinterest.Inan p apparentreferencetothesecond$25,000loanwhichFolcoand P Reginehaddiscussed,Folcosaid:"Italkedtoaguy,gonnaget  backtome.Gavemethebullshit,Jesus,ahh...Iwantapoint  p andahalf[oneandahalfpercent],hegivemethatshit."Folco   toldReginethathehadrejectedthisproposal,butthathe @" expectedtohearfromthe"guy"beforetheendoftheweek.  $  ` Indeed,PerrottaphonedFolcotwodayslaterabouta `"& second"putter": #@( 8 ` Perrotta:Youdidn'tlikethat,youdidn't % * likethatahthatputterIgotyah,Igotyou H&!+ anotherone.'`",` x` x Ї8 ` Folco:Alright.` x` x 8 ` Perrotta:Youknowandthenyouyouwhichever @ oneyoulikeahyoukeepandahtheoneyou X don'tlikeyoucangiveittomebacksoIcan   giveittosomebodyelse.` x` x 8 ` Folco:I'llbehere.( x` x` x MLaterthatday,PerrottashowedupatFolco'sresidence,again    withoutagolfputter.Inwhatthejurycouldhavefoundwasa H   referencetothescheduleforinterestpayments,Folcosaidto (  Perrotta"[e]veryWednesday,"andtherewasevidencethatFolcoand h  PerrottainfactmetonsubsequentWednesdays.Folcoalsosaid H  "I'llbeliketenweeks,that'sall,"whichthejurycouldhave  foundwasastatementofthetermoftheloan. h  ` ThefollowingdayReginecametoFolco'shome.Folco  reportedthat"[t]heguythatbroughtmethemoneyyesterday[]"had 8 supplied"[a]lltwenties."Thetwomencountedthemoneyand  determinedthatitindeedamountedto"25thousand."Regine X promisedtopayFolco"theotherfive[hundred][twopercentof 8 $25,000]Tuesdays"(earlierintheconversationhehadreiterated x! hisexistingobligationtogiveFolco"five"onTuesdayforthe  X# original$25,000).Inotherwords,FolcogothismoneyonTuesday !% andPerrottagothisonWednesday. (#x'  ` Consistentwiththeevidencesummarizedabove,anotebook $ ) foundinFolco'sresidencecontainedentriesthatthejurycould H&!+ havefoundwerearecordoftwoloansof$25,000eachfromPerrotta '(#- toFolco.FBIexpertJeromeSimpsonofferedtheopinionthatthese h)$/ loans,ataninterestrateofonepercentperweek"belowthe *H&1 rateofalloftheotherloansinthis[notebook],and...below ,'3 therateofanyotherloanthatI'veeverseenforaloansharkto  make,puttingmoneyoutonthestreet"wereprobablyloansfrom @ oneloansharktoanother.AsFolcoexplainedhisfinancial   arrangementstoRegine,"theguysIgoseethatlendmoney,I `  guaranteethatmoneyout."  @  ` ThiswasnotthefirsttimePerrottahadadvancedmoney    toFolco,asevidencedbythefollowingconversationbetweenFolco `  andEddieLato,oneofhis"business"partners:   8 ` Lato:Youknow,whathe[Perrotta]does 0  sometimes...youaskhimfortwo[thousand] H  hefreezes.He'sgotsomethingabout...I  don'tknowifhethinksyou'regonnatryand  robhim....P` x` x 8 ` Folco:Todayitwasn'tthat.LasttimeI 0 askedhim,"Ya,anythingyouwant?"Tookten  offhim,remember."I #  4      Yp` x` x Inaddition,Folcomadereferenceinarecordedconversationtoan P earlier"deal"hehaddone(for"apoint")withthesourceofthe  $50,000hewaslendingtoRegine.   p mOapOY D.TheSeizureofPerrotta'sCashandWeapons     ` AsearchconductedonJune23,1995,turnedup$4,703in " cashonPerrotta'sperson,$4,800incasharoundPerrotta'shouse,  !p$ twohandgunsandammunitioninanightstandinafirstfloor "& bedroom,athirdhandgun,brassknuckles,afakebombinPerrotta's @$( garage,andabillyclubinhiscar.Thenextday,Folcohadthe % !* followingconversationwithLato: `'", 8 ` Lato:Um.Perrotta,theygot.I'mafraid.` x` x 8 ` Folco:Whatthey[unintelligible]onhim?@` x` x 8 ` Lato:Bombs,guns,everything. ` x` x 8 ` Folco:Heain'tworriedabout `  [unintelligible].Ifheblowsup.Hm. ( x [Unintelligible]he'sdead.C #  5       @` x` x _LatotheninformedFolcothat(presumablythepolice)"[t]ook10    offofPerrotta,"consistentwiththeseizurethedaybeforeof `  $9503fromPerrotta.LatoreportedthathehadspokentoPerrotta   aftertheraid,andthateitherheorPerrottahadsaidtothe 0  other:"it'soverforus."N #  6      ׀Folcoexpressedconcernthat  "[s]omebodywillrat."Latoagreed:"Andtheygonnasaythatwe, P we,webankrolledthewholefuckingthing." 0  E.TheEvidenceofPerrotta'sKnowledgeofFolco's"Business"  p  ` First,therewasevidencetendingtoshowthatPerrotta P hadrepeateddealingswithFolcoinrelationtoFolco'smoney 0 lendingoperation.ThejurycouldhaveinferredfromFolco's p reporttoCedronithathehadtold"theoldman"thathe"might P  need...50,000more"(emphasisadded)thatPerrottawasan " ongoingparticipantinFolco'sloansharkingbusiness.Thesame  !p$ inferenceissupportedbyFolco'sreferencetoaprevious"deal"he "& haddonewiththesourceofthe$50,000,andbytheconversationin  whichLatoandFolcodiscussedwhatPerrotta"sometimes"doeswhen @ askedformoney.Basedonthisevidence,thejurycouldhave   concludedthatPerrottawasmorethananunwitting,peripheral `  participantinFolco'sloansharkingbusiness.Thatinference  @ couldhavebeenreinforcedforthejurybytheconcernLato    expressedtoFolco,afterthesearchofPerrotta'shome,that"they `  got"Perrotta,"I'mafraid"("[b]ombs,guns,everything"),andby   thestatementbyLatoorPerrottathat"it'salloverforus." 0   ` Second,ifthejuryfoundthatPerrottaknewthatFolco  wasrelendingthe$50,000toathirdpersonasFolco's P statementtoPerrotta,"I'lllethim[presumablyRegine]countit 0 [themoneyPerrottahadjustdelivered],"suggestsitcouldalso p haveconcludedthatPerrottamusthaverealizedthatFolcoandthat P personunderstoodthatviolenceorothercriminalcollection  techniquesmightbeused.Thisisbecause,forFolcototurna  p profit,hewouldhavehadtochargeinterestinexcessoftheone   percentperweekhewaspayingPerrotta,whichwouldmakethe @" obligationlegallyunenforceableinRhodeIsland.SeeUnited  $ Statesv.Oreto,37F.3d739,75253(1stCir.1994)(factthat `"& loanwas"grosslyusurious"wasafactorindicatingviolencemight #@( beusedtocollect).ThejurycouldhavecreditedSimpson's % * testimonythat,inhisopinion,theloanfromPerrottatoFolcoat '`", therelativelylowrateofonepercentperweek"wasprobablya (#. loanfromoneloansharktoanother,"andthatFolco'sroleinthe 0*%0 transactionswas,asheexplainedtoRegine,to"guarantee +'2 [Perrotta's]moneyout."IfthejurybelievedthatPerrotta  himselfwasaloanshark,itcouldhavereasonedthathemusthave @ realizedthatFolcowasonetoo,andthatFolcomightuse   extortionatemethodstocollectthe$50,000hehadborrowedfrom `  PerrottaandloanedtoRegine.  @  ` Insum,whiletherewasnodirectevidencethatPerrotta    understoodtheextortionatenatureofFolco'stransactionswith `  Regine,thereisenoughcircumstantialevidencetosupportajury   findingthathemusthaverealizedhowFolcowouldenforce,if 0  necessary,Regine'srepaymentobligations.   @  III.AdmissionoftheWeapons  P  ` Perrottafiledapretrialmotioninlimine"toexclude, 0 asevidenceagainsthim,alltangibleevidenceseizedfromhis  residenceassuchevidenceisinadmissiblepursuanttoFederalRule P ofEvidence404(b)andintroductionofthesamewoulddenythe 0 defendantthefairtrialtowhichheisentitled."Atthemotion p hearing,Perrottaarguedthatintroductionoftheguns,brass P  knuckles,billyclub,andfakebombwouldbe"highlyprejudicial." " Thoseitems,hecontended,are"irrelevanttothecrimescharged  !p$ andwillclearlyresultinthe[j]urybeinginvitedtoconvictMr. "& Perrotta...because...ofbadcharacterorthingsthatthe @$( [j]uryinthisclimatewillnotlikepossessionoffirearms % !* and...otherweapons."Thedistrictcourtdeniedthemotion. `'",  ` Attrial,policeofficerstestifiedtothediscoveryof (@$. theguns,brassknuckles,andfakebombinPerrotta'sresidence, *%0 andthebillyclubinPerrotta'scar.Exceptwithrespecttothe ,`'2 brassknuckles,Perrottamadenoobjectiontothistestimony.Nor  didheraisea404(b)objectiontotherecordedconversationin @ whichLatosaidtoFolco"theygot"Perrotta,"[b]ombs,guns,   everything."O #  7      ׀However,whenthegovernmentrequestedthatthe `  seizeditemsbemarkedasexhibits,Perrottaobjectedontheground  @ of"relevance."     ` Onappeal,Perrottaarguesthatthedistrictcourtshould `  haveexcludedtheweaponsunderFed.R.Evid.404(b)asevidenceof   othercrimes,wrongs,oracts,orbecausetheirprobativevaluewas 0  substantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudiceunder  Fed.R.Evid.403.l #  8      ׀ P 8 ` Toadmitevidenceof[other]badacts,atrial 0 courtmustfindthattheevidencepassestwo  tests.First,theevidencemusthave'special p relevance'toanissueinthecase...,and 8 mustnotinclude"badcharacterorpropensity P asanecessarylinkintheinferentialchain."  Second,underRule403,evidencethatis  speciallyrelevantmaystillbeexcludedif X itsprobativevalueissubstantially  p outweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice.8` x` x {UnitedStatesv.Varoudakis,233F.3d113,118(1stCir.2000) x! (quotingUnitedStatesv.Frankhauser,80F.3d641,648(1stCir.  X# 1996)).Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sevidentiaryrulingsfor !% abuseofdiscretion.UnitedStatesv.Gilbert,181F.3d152,160 (#x'  (1stCir.1999). $ ) mOa m m  A.Rule404(b)     ` AlthoughPerrottaarguesthattheweaponshadnoneofthe  specialrelevancetothechargesagainsthimrequiredbyRule  p 404(b),hedidnotchallengethepolicetestimonythattheweapons   werefoundinhispossession.NordidhechallengeLato's @  "[b]ombs,guns,everything"remarkonspecialrelevancegrounds.    Thus,evenifweweretoconcludethattheintroductionofthe `  actualweaponslackedthespecialrelevancerequiredbytherule @  andonlyservedtocreateanegativeinferenceaboutPerrotta's   character,wewouldhavetoconsidertheimportantfactthat ` evidenceaboutPerrotta'spossessionoftheweaponswasalreadyin  thecasebecauseofthetestimonytowhichPerrottadidnotobject 0 on404(b)grounds."UnderFed.R.Evid.103(a),thiscourtmust  reviewachallengedevidentiarydecisiontodeterminewhether'a P substantialrightofthepartyisaffected.'"Dotyv.Sewall,908 0 F.2d1053,1057(1stCir.1990)(quotingFed.R.Evid.103(a)).We p haveheldthat"nosubstantialrightofthepartyisaffectedwhere P  theevidenceadmittedwascumulativeastootheradmitted " evidence."Id.TotheextentthatPerrottawasconcernedthatthe  !p$ admissionoftheweaponsintoevidencewronglyalertedthejuryto "& thefactthathehadpossessedthem,anysucherrorwouldbe @$( harmless.Thejuryalreadyknewthatfactfromthetestimonyof % !* witnessesabouttheweapons. `'",  ` Forthesakeofcompleteness,however,andtodispelany (@$. notionofunfairnesssurroundingtheadmissionofthetestimony *%0 abouttheweapons,weaddthatifPerrottahadobjectedtothe ,`'2 testimonyabouttheweapons,andhadnotlimitedhisobjectionto  theirintroductionintoevidence,hisobjectionwouldhavebeen @ meritless.Testimonyaboutthediscoveryoftheguns,brass   knuckles,billyclub,andfakebombinPerrotta'shomeandcarhad `  thespecialrelevancetothegovernment'scaserequiredbyRule  @ 404(b).Inaconversationrecordedthedayafterthesearchof    Perrotta'shomeandcar,LatosaidtoFolcothathewas"afraid" `  that"[b]ombs,guns,everything"hadbeentakenfromPerrotta.The   FolcoLatoconversationinallofitsdetailwasprobativeofthe 0  relationshipbetweenPerrottaandFolco,revealinganalarmed  reactionbyFolcoandLatototheinvestigationofPerrotta,and P therebysuggestingthatPerrottawasasignificantplayerintheir 0 loansharkingoperation.Inaddition,theirawarenessofthe p detailsoftheseizurefromPerrottasosoonafterithappenedwas P furtherevidenceoftheircloserelationshipwithhim.Perrotta's  contentionthattheweaponshadnorelevanceexcepttosupporta  p negativeinferenceabouthischaracteristhereforewithoutmerit.    ` Thegovernmentalsoarguesthattheseizedweaponswere @" relevantgenerallyas"toolsofthetrade"ofextortionbecause  $ theyareusefultoprotectthelenderandintimidateborrowers,and `"& thustheytendtoshowthatPerrottawasaloanshark.Wehave #@( saidthat"indrugtraffickingfirearmshavebecome'toolsofthe % * trade'andthusareprobativeoftheexistenceofadrug '`", conspiracy."UnitedStatesv.Green,887F.2d25,27(1stCir. (#. 1989).Thegovernmenturgesustoextendthe"toolsofthetrade" 0*%0 rationalefortheadmissionofweaponstothecrimeofextortion, +'2 reasoningthatweaponsaretoolsoftheloanshark'stradejustas  theyaretoolsofthedrugdealer'strade,andthusareprobative @ ofloansharkingactivity.UnitedStatesv.Gilley,836F.2d1206,   1214n.9(9thCir.1988)(notingthatthe"toolsofthetrade" `  doctrinemightbeapplicabletoextortion).Thedistrictcourt  @ appearedtoendorsethegovernment's"toolsofthetrade"theoryin    denyingPerrotta'smotiontoexcludetheweapons.Inourview, `  however,therearethreereasonswhythiswasapoorcaseforthe   governmenttourgeextendingthetoolsofthetradedoctrinetothe 0  crimeofextortion:(1)thegovernmentdoesnotclaimthatPerrotta  himselfusedthreatsofviolencetoenforcedebtsowedtohim;(2) P therewaslittleleftofPerrotta'srelevanceobjectionafterhe 0 didnotobjecttothetestimonyabouttheweapons;and(3)the p weaponshadacasespecificrelevancetothechargesagainst P Perrottathatwehavealreadydescribed.SeeGilley,836F.2dat  1214n.9("Where,ashere,aclearnexusexistsbetweenthe  p evidenceandthecrimecharged,noresortneedbemadetothe   'toolsofthetrade'doctrine.").Becauseresorttothetoolsof @" thetradedoctrinewasunnecessaryinthiscase,wedonotaddress  $ themeritsofthegovernment'sargument. `"&  B.Rule403  #@(  ` Perrottaalsoarguesthattheweaponsshouldhavebeen % !* excludedunderRule403,astheirprobativevaluewassubstantially `'", outweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice.Sincethejurywas (@$. notbeingaskedtomakeanyspecificdeterminationsconcerningthe *%0 physicalcharacteristicsoftheweapons,wediscernnoparticular ,`'2 reasonwhythejuryneededtoseetheactualweapons.However,it  isacommonplaceoftrialpracticethattestimonyaboutphysical @ objectsoftenleadstotheirintroductionintoevidence.That   introductionservestocorroboratethetestimonyaboutthe `  existenceoftheobjects,apurposecapturedbythefamiliarphrase  @ "seeingisbelieving."F #  9      ׀Thisaddedincrementofprobativevalueis    appropriateunlessitissubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerof `  unfairprejudicetothedefendant.Fed.R.Evid.403;seealso   UnitedStatesv.RodriguezEstrada,877F.2d153,156(1stCir. 0  1989)("[A]llevidenceismeanttobeprejudicial;itisonly  unfairprejudicewhichmustbeavoided."(emphasisinoriginal)). P  ` "'[O]nlyrarelyandinextraordinarilycompelling 0 circumstanceswillwe,fromthevistaofacoldappellate p record,reverseadistrictcourt'sonthespotjudgmentconcerning P therelativeweighingofprobativevalueandunfaireffect.'"  UnitedStatesv.Pitrone,115F.3d1,8(1stCir.1997)(quoting  p Freemanv.PackageMach.Co.,865F.2d1331,1340(1stCir.1988)).   Here,thegovernmenthasbeenunabletoexplainwhythejuryneeded @" toseetheactualweapons,beyondtheusualcorroborativepurpose  $ pOY p p  servedbytheintroductionoftheobjectsthemselves.Bythesame  token,however,weseenounfairprejudicefromtheintroductionof @ thegunsandthefakebombintoevidence.Thedistrictcourt   instructedthejurythattherewasnoevidencethatPerrottahad `  possessedthegunsillegally,andtherewastestimonythatthebomb  @ wasafake.Nothingintherecordsuggeststhatthegunsorthe    fakebombwouldhaveinflamedthejuryorinspiredthemtodecide `  thecaseonanemotionalbasis.SeeVaroudakis,233F.3dat122   ("Usually,courtsusetheterm'unfairprejudice'forevidencethat 0  invitesthejurytorenderaverdictonanimproperemotional  basis."). P Ѐ ` Similarly,althoughthebrassknucklesandbillyclub 0 weresurelyunfamiliaritemstothejurors,q #  10      ׀andwererealrather p thanfake,weagainseenothingintherecordtosuggestthatthe P brassknucklesandbillyclubwouldhaveinflamedthejuryto  decidethecaseonanemotionalbasis.Seeid.Wetherefore  p concludethatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsbroaddiscretion   inadmittingtheweaponsseizedfromPerrottaintoevidence. @"   IV.SuppressionoftheWeapons  $   ` Perrottaarguesthattheseizureofhisweaponsviolated "& theFourthAmendmentbecausetheweaponswerenotdescribedinthe @$( searchwarrant.Hisargumentignorestheplainviewdoctrine, % !* whichpermitstheseizureofitemslocatedinplainviewif"(1) `'", theseizingofficerhasapriorjustificationforbeingina (@$. positiontoseetheiteminplainviewand(2)theevidentiary  valueoftheitemisimmediatelyapparent."UnitedStatesv. @ Owens,167F.3d739,746(1stCir.1999).Evidentiaryvalueis   "immediatelyapparent"ifthereare"enoughfactsforareasonable `  persontobelievethattheitemsinplainviewmaybecontrabandor  @ evidenceofacrime."UnitedStatesv.Hamie,165F.3d80,83(1st    Cir.1999). `   ` Perrottafailstoexplainwhytheplainviewexceptionis   inapplicabletothiscase.Thesearchwasconductedpursuanttoan 0  investigationofaloansharkingconspiracythatusedviolenceto  enforcerepaymentobligations.Theofficershadreasontobelieve P thattheweaponscouldhaveevidentiaryvalueinconnectionwith 0 theirinvestigation,asPerrottacouldhaveusedtheweaponsto p collectdebtsortoprotecthiscash.Itmakesnodifferencethat P theweaponswerenotusedtocommitthecrimesforwhichPerrotta  wasconvicted;theFourthAmendmentrequiressimplythatthe  p investigators,atthetimeoftheseizure,hadreasonablegrounds   tobelievethattheitems"may[havebeen]contrabandorevidence @" ofacrime."Q #  11      ׀Id.  $   V.DueProcess `"&   ` Perrottaarguesthat18U.S.C.893violatestheDue @$( ProcessClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitutioninproscribingthe % !* advancementofmoneytoaperson"withreasonablegroundsto `'", believe"thatthepersonintendstousethemoneytomakean  extortionateextensionofcredit.Perrotta'spositionisthatthe @ quotedlanguage"invitesconfusionintheapplicationofthe   'beyondareasonabledoubt'standard,andcouldeasilyleadthe `  jurytoconvictunderthisstatuteifthejuryhas'reasonable  @ grounds'tobelievetheDefendantisguilty."     ` Perrottacitesnoprecedentthatsupportshisviewof `  893,orofitsimplicationsforanyoftheotherfederalstatutes   thatincludethesameorsimilarlanguage.See,e.g.,18U.S.C. 0  2388(c)(activitiesaffectingarmedforcesduringwar)(punishing  "[w]hoeverharborsorconcealsanypersonwhoheknows,orhas P reasonablegroundstobelieveorsuspect,hascommitted...an 0 offenseunderthissection")(emphasisadded);18U.S.C. p 1030(a)(1)(punishing,interalia,whoever"havingknowingly P accessedacomputerwithoutauthorization...andbymeansof  suchconducthavingobtainedinformationthathasbeendetermined  p bytheUnitedStatesGovernment...torequireprotectionagainst   unauthorizeddisclosure,...withreasontobelievethatsuch @" informationsoobtainedcouldbeusedtotheinjuryoftheUnited  $ States,...willfullycommunicates,delivers,transmits,or `"& causestobecommunicated,delivered,ortransmitted...thesame #@( toanypersonnotentitledtoreceiveit")(emphasisadded);18 % * U.S.C.842(c)("Itshallbeunlawfulforanylicenseeto '`", distributeexplosivematerialstoanypersonwhothelicenseehas (#. reasontobelieveintendstotransportsuchexplosivematerials 0*%0 intoaStatewherethepurchase,possession,oruseofexplosive +'2 materialsisprohibited....")(emphasisadded). Nordoeshe  explainwhythegovernmentiswrongtosuggestthat"Congress @ surelyhasthepowertoadoptdifferentstandardsofintentforthe   mensreaelementsoffederalcrimes,solongasthejurymustfind `  beyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantactedwiththegiven  @ levelofintentincommittingthecrime."Intheabsenceofany    explanation,hisargumentvergesonthefrivolous. `   ` Affirmed.