United States of America v. Yuri Perren Green, Jr., also known as YG

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2801
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Yuri Perren Green, Jr., also known as YG
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: October 19, 2023
Filed: June 12, 2024
[Published]
____________
Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Yuri Green, Jr., twice tried to kill members of a rival gang. Although he
argues the district court1 should have acquitted him of racketeering-related
attempted-murder charges, we affirm.
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
I.
A feud between two Des Moines street gangs led to a drive-by shooting on
Mother’s Day. An OTB (short for Only the Brothers) member was hit, so Green
wanted revenge. When he saw an SUV he mistakenly thought belonged to a member
of the rival gang later that day, he opened fire. Fortunately, he missed the driver,
who had no connection to either group.
After numerous members of OTB ended up in police custody, Green and
others began calling themselves the Money Gang. Existing rivalries continued,
however, which led to his participation in another shooting.
Green’s actions resulted in two counts each of attempted murder in aid of
racketeering, see 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5), and discharging a firearm during a crime
of violence, see id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). After a jury found him guilty of all counts,
he moved for an acquittal, but the district court determined there was sufficient
evidence supporting the verdict. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c).
II.
The court was right. The racketeering-related attempted-murder charges
required the government to prove that OTB was “an enterprise,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 1959(a), “a continuing unit that function[ed] with a common purpose,” Boyle v.
United States, 556 U.S. 938, 948 (2009) (interpreting the identical “enterprise”
element in a related statute); see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(b)(2), 1961(4) (defining the
term). Unless “no reasonable jury could have found” it was one, the convictions will
stand. United States v. McArthur, 850 F.3d 925, 933 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence de novo).
The evidence established that OTB functioned as a “continuing unit” and that
its members had a “common purpose.” Boyle, 556 U.S. at 948. A police detective

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
explained that OTB had split off from a larger gang about a year earlier, after a key
member was killed. According to one OTB member, a common purpose—a “big
part” of what they did—was “get[ting] money” through selling drugs, both “together
and individual[ly].” Another was attacking rivals, which involved carrying a gun
with a bullet in the chamber, “look[ing] for opps,” and “shoot[ing] at them.” See
McArthur, 850 F.3d at 934 (identifying “promot[ing] the [gang], develop[ing] its
reputation, and protect[ing] its territory and members” as common purposes of an
“enterprise”).
Little changed after the group renamed itself the Money Gang. It was still the
“[s]ame individuals doing the same activities.” It made no difference that they called
themselves something different, because an enterprise “need not have a name” at all,
much less a permanent one. Boyle, 556 U.S. at 948. All that matters is that it had
“a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity
sufficient to permit these associates to pursue [its] purpose.” Id. at 946 (listing the
“structural features” of “an association-in-fact enterprise”).
Green also did not need to be a member of OTB to have taken actions in aid
of racketeering. It was good enough that the violent acts he committed were “for the
purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in” the gang.
18 U.S.C. § 1959(a). So even if he was just an “associate,” not a full-fledged
“member,” the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that he
wanted to advance within the organization. See id.
III.
We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --