Whether Murray's conviction on Count One should be reversed due to insufficient evidence

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether Murray’s conviction on Count One should be reversed because there is insufficient evidence after Davis that the jury found two or more predicate acts of racketeering? 2. Whether there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Count Two that Murray specifically intended to aid and abet Johnson in the assault and attempted murder of rival gang members at the chicken restaurant? 3. Whether the district court erred in its supplemental instruction to the jury that it could find that Murray acted as a principal in the chicken restaurant shooting alleged in Count Two, when the Indictment and the government said that Murray was liable under an aiding and abetting theory? 4. Whether the district court erred when it advised Murray about the plea offers, and in particular when it did not advise Murray of the pending decision in Davis? 5. Whether the district court erred when it did not suppress items seized during the execution of an arrest warrant at Murray’s apartment when, among other things, police did not have specific and articulable facts that Murray might be present? 6. Whether the district court erred when it did not adjourn the trial date to substitute new counsel after it became apparent Murray and his assigned counsel were in conflict? 2 7. Whether the district court’s 235-month sentence was _ substantively unreasonable? 3 PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS The Petitioner in this Court is Donnell Murray. The Respondent is the United States of America. 4