Full opinion text
MAHONEY, Circuit Judge: Aex Wong, Roger Kwok, Chen I. Chung, Tung Tran, Danny Ngo, Brian Chan, Joseph Wang, Chiang T. Cheng, and Steven Ng appeal from judgments of conviction entered on various dates in October and November 1992 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Reena Raggi, Judge, after a ten-week jury trial. Each of the defendants was convicted of a substantive violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) provisions of the federal criminal code, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and 1963, and of RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1963. Each of the defendants except Alex Wong, Chiang T. Cheng, and Steven Ng was also convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit an assault with dangerous weapons to maintain or increase their positions in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(6). In addition, Alex Wong was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5). Roger Kwok was convicted of one count of conspiracy to kidnap and commit murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); two counts of kidnapping and murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2; two counts of conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and two counts of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2. Chen I. Chung was convicted of six counts of conspiracy to commit murder (and in one count also to kidnap) to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); five counts of murder (and, as to two counts, kidnapping) to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2; one count of kidnapping to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2; one count of conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894; one count of using extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 894 and 2; six counts of conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and five counts of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2. Tung Tran was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder (and in one count also to kidnap) to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); four counts of murder (and, as to two counts, kidnapping) to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2; one count of conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894; one count of using extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 894 and 2; three counts of conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and three counts of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2. Danny Ngo was convicted of one count of conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894, and one count of using extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 894 and 2. Brian Chan was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder (and in one count also to kidnap) to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); three counts of murder (and, as to two counts, kidnapping) to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2; one count of conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894; one count of using extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 894 and 2; two counts of conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and two counts of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2. Joseph Wang was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); two counts of murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2; one count of conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and one count of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2. Chiang T. Cheng was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5); three counts of murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(1) and 2; one count of conspiracy to use extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894; and one count of using extortionate means to collect a debt in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 894 and 2. Finally, Steven Ng was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5). The non-RICO crimes of which defendants-appellants were convicted generally correspond to the predicate acts that the jury found to have been proved under the two RICO counts, but several of the RICO predicate acts were not separately charged as substantive crimes, and one of the non-RICO counts has no counterpart among the RICO predicate acts. Chen I. Chung, Chiang T. Cheng, and Steven Ng were acquitted of one count of murder to maintain or increase their position in a RICO enterprise. Tung Tran and Brian Chan were each acquitted of one count of kidnapping to maintain or increase their positions in a RICO enterprise. The district court sentenced all defendants except Ngo and Ng principally to multiple concurrent terms of life imprisonment for their participation in offenses involving murder to maintain or increase their positions in a RICO enterprise. The court sentenced Ngo principally to concurrent terms of ten years imprisonment for his RICO and extortion offenses. Ng was sentenced principally to concurrent terms of 210 months imprisonment for his RICO violations and 120 months imprisonment for conspiracy to commit murder. Bach defendant was also accorded a number of shorter sentences to run concurrently with the principal sentences. The district court imposed concurrent fines totalling $250,000 upon each defendant except Ng, who was fined $175,000. We affirm the judgments of conviction and sentences except for the fines imposed in this case. We vacate the fines and remand for their reconsideration. Background We provide only a general factual introduction to our opinion at this preliminary juncture. Further background facts will be detailed in connection with the issues to which they pertain during the discussion of those issues. Factual recitals are based upon trial testimony and other evidence that the jury could reasonably have credited in reaching the verdicts that it rendered, except that some factual recitals (relating to pretrial hearings) are based upon evidence that was presented only to Judge Raggi, and not to the jury. The defendants were named in a thirty-count superseding indictment that charged them with membership in a racketeering enterprise known as the “Green Dragons.” The Green Dragons was a violent gang that operated principally in the predominantly Chinese sections of Elmhurst and Flushing in Queens, New York. The members primarily extorted “protection” money from Chinese-run businesses, but also engaged in periodic armed robberies. They frequently employed violence to defend and expand their turf, assaulting, kidnapping, and murdering rival gang members, potential witnesses, and businessmen who refused to pay protection money. The gang amassed a size-able arsenal of firearms with which to conduct its criminal activities. As the Green Dragons expanded its operations, its weekly intake of protection money increased from between $400-600 per week during the summer of 1989 to $1,500-1,700 per week in late 1990. Kin Fei Wong founded the Green Dragons in the mid-1980’s as an offshoot of another Asian gang known as the “Fook Ching,” and was the overall “Dai Lo” or “Big Brother” of the gang. Because Kin Fei Wong spent much of his time out of the United States, he delegated day-to-day operational authority to senior gang members. The operational or “street” leader of the Green Dragons in late 1986 was a gang member known as “E.T.” After E.T. was killed in November 1986 by the Tung On, a rival Asian gang, Chen I. Chung became the operational leader of the Green Dragons. Kin Fei Wong maintained regular telephone contact with Chen I. Chung, and issued directives concerning Green Dragons policy, specific places to be extorted and amounts to demand, and how to handle conflicts with rival gangs and members of the Chinese community. The Green Dragons recruited young Asian men from schools and playgrounds in Queens. Most of the members moved out of their families’ homes and into apartments or “safe houses” maintained by the gang, where they lived with other Green Dragons members under the supervision of more senior members. Senior members collected funds derived from the gang’s activities, and used the funds to pay the gang’s expenses and to pay salaries to younger members. Sonny Wong, who was one of the government’s primary witnesses at trial, joined the Green Dragons when he was sixteen in October 1986, shortly after Steven Ng enlisted in the gang. He and Steven Ng had been approached at their high school by several Asian gangs before they decided to join the Green Dragons. At the time Wong and Ng joined the Green Dragons, E.T. was the gang’s operational leader under Kin Fei Wong; Chen I. Chung and Wing Dong Moi were two senior members. Chung and Moi instructed Sonny Wong concerning the operating rules of the Green Dragons, including that he was to follow orders and was not to speak to the police. Danny Ngo joined the gang in January 1987. Aleck Yim, another government witness, joined the Green Dragons in April 1988, after receiving the approval of gang members Alex Wong and Danny Ngo. Joseph Wang and Chiang T. Cheng joined the Green Dragons after Yim. Shortly thereafter, Tung Tran moved to New York from San Francisco and joined the gang. Brian Chan and Roger Kwok enlisted in April 1989. Sonny Wong was second to Chen I. Chung in the Green Dragons’ organizational structure, and his duties included overseeing new recruits, dealing with the gang’s lawyers, collecting funds obtained through the gang’s various activities, and distributing salaries. The other members of the gang carried out its program, committing acts of extortion, robbery, murder, and assault. The arrests and indictments in this ease resulted from a nine-month joint investigation conducted between March and November 1990 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) and the New York City Police Department (the “NYPD”), assisted by the Nassau County Police Department. As part of their investigation, the FBI and NYPD conducted court-authorized electronic surveillance, monitoring several telephones used by the Green Dragons from August through November 1990. Through these wiretaps, the authorities learned that the Green Dragons had arranged to fight a rival gang, the White Tigers, to settle a “turf” dispute. The police arrested Chen I. Chung, Tung Tran, Brian Chan, Joseph Wang, Roger Kwok, Danny Ngo, and other members of the Green Dragons on November 19,1990, as the gang members massed in preparation for the expected combat. Alex Wong, Chiang T. Cheng, and Steven Ng had already been incarcerated on November 19 on other charges. Following these arrests, defendants-appellants were charged, tried, and convicted, as previously summarized. This appeal followed. Discussion Defendants-appellants urge numerous grounds for reversal. Tung Tran and Alex Wong argue that impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures tainted identification testimony introduced at trial. Wong, Danny Ngo, and Roger Kwok contend that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over them because the government failed to adhere to the requirements of the federal Juvenile Delinquency Act. Kwok maintains that in his ease, the government also failed to comply with the speedy trial provision of that statute. Joseph Wang contends that the district court’s instruction on the RICO “pattern” requirement did not satisfy the “operation or management” test set forth in Reves v. Ernst & Young, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1163, 122 L.Ed.2d 625 (1993). Wang and Ngo claim that under the Reves standard, the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy violations. Ngo argues that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that he participated in a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. Steven Ng contends that the district court should have suppressed wiretap evidence on the ground that it was not timely sealed. Chen 1. Chung and Brian Chan contend that the district court improperly empaneled an anonymous jury. Wang and Chan challenge the admission of evidence of uncharged criminal activities to prove the “enterprise” requirement under RICO. Chan argues that the district court erred in admitting allegedly hearsay evidence regarding, and contests the sufficiency of the evidence implicating him in, the murder of Jin Lee Soek. Kwok, Chung, Chiang T. Cheng, and Wong argue that the district court erred in refusing to grant them downward departures in imposing their sentences. Wong, Tran, and Chan argue that because they are eoncededly indigent, the district court abused its discretion by imposing fines upon them. We address each of these claims below. Other contentions, which are not separately analyzed, are summarized at the conclusion of this opinion. A. Identification Testimony. Tung Tran and Alex Wong raise separate challenges to the admission of identification testimony at trial, arguing that the testimony was tainted by pretrial identification procedures that they claim were unduly suggestive. The identifications stemmed from two incidents involving crimes committed by Green Dragons members in 1989 and 1990. 1. The Tien Chiau Restaurant Homicides and Carol Huang’s Identification of Alex Wong. a. The Incident. On July 16, 1989, Carol Huang and her husband Gregory Hyde had dinner at the Tien Chiau Restaurant in Flushing. After Huang and Hyde finished dinner, they approached the counter to pay the manager, but saw two young Chinese men having an “intense conversation” with the manager, and so returned to their table to wait for the manager to finish the discussion. After hearing what they thought were firecrackers, Hyde turned and saw one of the young Chinese men with a gun in his hand, in a crouched position and shooting at the manager. Huang also saw the manager being shot. Hyde told his wife to duck under the table. As he tried to do so, Hyde was shot and fell to the floor, his legs paralyzed. After Huang saw her husband fall to the floor, she looked up and stared at the face of the young man with the gun for “[t]wo to three seconds,” while he looked at her. Huang described the gunman, whom she later identified as Alex Wong, as “a very nice-looking kid with huge, extraordinary huge eyes,” and approximately sixteen to seventeen years of age. Huang continued to stare at Wong for what felt “like ages,” because she feared that he would shoot at her or her husband again. Finally, Wong turned away when someone at another table screamed. Huang then saw Wong shoot in the direction of the scream. Both Anthony Gallivan, another customer dining at the restaurant, and Mon Hsiung Ting, the manager of the Tien Chiau, died from gunshot wounds inflicted during this incident. Earlier that summer, Chen I. Chung had told Sonny Wong that the manager of the Tien Chiau Restaurant had refused to pay protection money to the Green Dragons, and that he planned to have the manager killed to teach the owners of the restaurant “not to mess with the Green Dragons.” Joseph Wang and Alex Wong were in charge of collecting protection money from the Tien Chiau Restaurant. The night of the incident, Chen I. Chung contacted Sonny Wong to tell him the Tien Chiau manager was dead, and instructed Sonny Wong to meet him at Chung’s apartment. There Sonny Wong met with Alex Wong, Joseph Wang, and Chiang T. Cheng, who were debriefing Chung on the shooting. Cheng had driven Wang and Alex Wong to the restaurant. Alex Wong stated that he had shot the manager and a Caucasian customer. Joseph Wang said that after looking behind the cashier’s counter to ascertain whether a security camera had recorded the incident, he had shot the manager again to be certain that he was dead. b. Identification Procedures and Ruling Below. Huang provided an identification of Alex Wong as the “shooter” at the Tien Chiau Restaurant, and Wong moved unsuccessfully to suppress that evidence prior to trial. Wong claims error in the district court’s adverse ruling. Given the nature of Wong’s challenge, the next two paragraphs of this opinion describe primarily the testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing, which is generally consistent with the trial testimony on this issue. Shortly after the incident, on July 25, 1989, Huang met with an NYPD sketch artist, who prepared a sketch based on Huang’s description of the gunman’s facial features. On September 22,1989, Huang viewed three different photo arrays, each containing six photographs of Asian men. According to the interviewing NYPD detective, Huang chose Sonny Wong’s photo from the first array and Joseph Wang’s from the second, stating that their pictures “resembled” the “shooter” she had seen. She also chose Alex Wong’s photo from the third array, observing that the photo “look[ed] like the shooter,” and that if she saw the subject of the photograph in person she could identify him. Huang’s testimony was similar to the detective’s, but somewhat more tentative, and emphasized her desire to see the suspects in person. On May 3, 1990, the NYPD conducted a lineup before Huang of six or seven Asian men, including Alex Wong. After looking at the lineup for five to ten minutes, Huang indicated that she “wasn’t sure.” Huang stated that one of the men (number five— Alex Wong) “look[ed] like him, but she can’t be sure because of the height.” The police then held a second lineup with the same participants standing, dimming the lights to simulate the fighting in the restaurant on the night of the shooting. Huang viewed the lineup for approximately five to ten minutes; just before she did so, a police detective told her that “we can’t just take a ‘possibly.’” Huang then identified Alex Wong. Although he was taller than she remembered the gunman to be, Huang stated that Wong had “the same facial features, fair skin, [and] rather big, huge eyes.” Based on this testimony, Alex Wong moved to suppress Huang’s identification testimony, contending primarily that the detective’s statement had pressured her into mak-injg an identification and thereby tainted Huang’s identification of Wong. Wong also argued that there was not a sufficient independent basis for the testimony to be admissible, claiming that Huang had initially described the shooter as five feet seven inches tall, when his height was six feet two inches tall. The district court denied the motion. Although finding the detective’s comment “involve[d] some element of suggestiveness,” the court concluded that Huang’s identification was independently reliable and that Huang would be allowed to testify at trial. At trial, Huang both made an in-court identification of Wong and testified concerning her out-of-court identification of Wong after the standing lineup. c. Wong’s Contentions on Appeal. On appeal, Wong contends that Huang’s in-court and out-of-court identifications of him should have been suppressed, arguing that both the detective’s comment and the fact that Wong was taller than the other participants (by six to eight inches, according to the police detective’s estimate) rendered the standing lineup unduly suggestive. (Wong does not challenge the fairness of either the photo arrays or the sitting lineup.) Wong notes that Huang testified at trial that she had never seen a photograph of him before picking him out of the standing lineup, although she had in fact done so when shown the photo arrays. Wong argues that Huang’s hesitance in identifying Wong in the photo array and the seated lineup contrasts starkly with her certainty after the standing lineup, indicating that the second lineup was suggestive and that her identification was not independently reliable. Finally, Wong argues that the length of time between the shooting and the lineup — ten months— weighs heavily against a finding of independent reliability. The Supreme Court has established a two-step inquiry for evaluating the constitutional permissibility of in-court identification testimony based on out-of-court identification procedures. That inquiry “requires a determination of whether the identification process was impermissibly suggestive and, if so, whether it was so suggestive as to raise ‘a very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis-identification.’” Jackson v. Fogg, 589 F.2d 108, 111 (2d Cir.1978) (quoting Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198, 98 S.Ct. 375, 381-82, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972) (citing Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968))). If pretrial procedures have been unduly suggestive, a court may nonetheless admit in-court identification testimony if the court determines it to be independently reliable. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2253, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); Jarrett v. Headley, 802 F.2d 34, 42 (2d Cir.1986). The court should consider the reliability of the identification in light of the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of [the witness’] prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation. Against these factors is to be weighed the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself. Manson, 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. at 2253; see also Neil, 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. at 382. For both pretrial and in-court identifications, the linchpin of admissibility is reliability. Manson, 432 U.S. at 106 n. 9, 114, 97 S.Ct. at 2249 n. 9, 2253. However, if impermissibly suggestive procedures are not employed, “independent reliability is not a constitutionally required condition of admissibility, and the reliability of the identification is simply a question for the jury.” Jarrett, 802 F.2d at 42 (citations omitted). We are not persuaded that the standing lineup was unduly suggestive. Wong does not contest the fact that the composition of the lineup, which featured a number of Asian males of similar general appearance, was fair. While the detective’s comment created the risk of prompting an identification on something less than total certainty, it did not suggest that Huang choose any particular participant, nor did it confirm the correctness of her choice after it had been made. See Jarrett, 802 F.2d at 46 (prosecutor’s statement to witness before trial to “stick to [his] guns” about identification not impermissibly suggestive because it could be, and was, taken to mean that witness should speak his mind). Further, while lineups that unnecessarily contrast the height of a suspect with that of the other participants have been condemned as suggestive, see, e.g., Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 442-43, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 1128-29, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); McFadden v. Cabana, 851 F.2d 784, 785, 789-90 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1083, 109 S.Ct. 1541, 103 L.Ed.2d 845 (1989), we do not consider the height discrepancy to have been suggestive in this case. The circumstances of this case seem to indicate that Huang chose Wong despite his height, not because of it. In any event, Huang’s testimony was that Wong was in a crouched position, shooting, when she observed him in the restaurant, rendering a misestimate of his height understandable without significantly undercutting the reliability of her identification. When the appearance of participants in a lineup is not uniform with respect to a given characteristic, the “principal question” in determining suggestiveness is whether the appearance “of the accused, matching de scriptions given by the witness, so stood out from all of the other[s] ... as to ‘suggest to an identifying witness that [that person] was more likely to be the culprit.’ ” Jarrett, 802 F.2d at 41 (emphasis added, alterations partially added, other alteration added in Jarrett) (quoting United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938, 940 (2d Cir.), modified, 756 F.2d 223 (2d Cir.1984)); see also United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786, 803 (2d Cir.) (lineup not suggestive where defendant’s moustache was smaller than those of other lineup participants, because witness described man with no facial hair), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 104, 121 L.Ed.2d 63 (1992); Solomon v. Smith, 645 F.2d 1179, 1182-84 (2d Cir.1981) (lineup suggestive when suspect was only person meeting description of height and weight provided by witness); United States ex rel. Cannon v. Montanye, 486 F.2d 263, 266-67 (2d Cir.1973) (lineup suggestive when defendant directed to wear green sweater, witness had stated that suspect wore green shirt), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 962, 94 S.Ct. 1982, 40 L.Ed.2d 313 (1974); United States v. Fernandez, 456 F.2d 638, 641-43 (2d Cir.1972) (photo array suggestive when defendant’s was only photo matching skin color described by witnesses). According to Wong, Huang initially described the gunman as approximately five feet seven or eight inches tall. Although the other lineup participants more closely fit this description, Huang chose Wong because of his facial features, commenting that he was taller than she remembered. We conclude that neither the detective’s comment, nor the height differential between Wong and the other participants in the lineup, nor the combination of these two factors rendered the lineup at which Huang identified Wong unduly suggestive. Furthermore, in any event, viewing the totality of the circumstances, see Manson, 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. at 2253; Neil, 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. at 382, Huang’s pretrial identification was independently reliable and thus admissible. Huang observed the gunman after she ducked under the table at the restaurant, staring him in the face for “[two] to three seconds” before he turned away. This was sufficient for identification. See Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 4-6, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 2000-02, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970) (plurality opinion) (fleeting but “real good look” at assailant sufficient for identification). Moreover, as the district court found, Huang’s degree of attention was very high as she stared at the assailant’s face because she feared he would open fire on her and her husband. See United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 378 (2d Cir.1992) (“nature of events” in struggle and shooting “was such as to attract and hold [the witnesses’] attention”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 163, 126 L.Ed.2d 124 (1993); Gonzalez v. Hammock, 639 F.2d 844, 847 (2d Cir.1980) (witness’ attention “would be riveted on a man who was pulling a shotgun from a bag”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1088, 101 S.Ct. 880, 66 L.Ed.2d 815 (1981). Further, Huang worked with a sketch artist in the development of a composite sketch of the assailant that, the district court found, bore a “striking resemblance in many respects” to Alex Wong. As to certainty, Huang apparently made a tentative identification of Wong after the first lineup, but said she was “not very sure.” Huang displayed no doubts after the second lineup, or in her subsequent testimony. In commenting upon Huang’s testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing, the district court observed that Huang was “a person of rather strong character” who was not “easily influenced by anyone,” and concluded that Huang’s certainty was the result of her own independent recollection. Finally, the length of time between the crime and the confrontation (ten months before the lineup and thirty-one months before the in-court identification), while a factor militating against reliability, may be outweighed by other indicia of reliability. See United States v. Jacobowitz, 877 F.2d 162, 168 (2d Cir.) (ten-month interval), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989); United States v. Williams, 596 F.2d 44, 49 (2d Cir.) (thirty-two month interval), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 2893, 61 L.Ed.2d 317 (1979). 2. The Hampton Street Robbery and Linda Pang’s Identification of Tung Tran. a. The Incident. On January 23, 1990, members of the Green Dragons robbed an apartment at 40-15 Hampton Street in Queens, acting on a tip that the apartment was the location of an underground gambling spot. The night of the robbery, Sonny Wong met Chen I. Chung at one of the gang’s apartments. Chen I. Chung said that he had sent Brian Chan, Alex Wong, Steven Ng, Joseph Wang, Chiang T. Cheng, and several others to rob the apartment; Sonny Wong believed that Chung also might have mentioned Danny Ngo or Tung Tran. The Green Dragons went to the apartment that night, and forced their entrance shortly after 11 p.m. Once inside, the gang forced Cheng Chen (one of the apartment’s occupants), his mother, and his cousin to undress, and proceeded to ransack the apartment. For the next two hours, Cheng Chen was held in one room at gunpoint, during which time he heard various sounds coming from other rooms in the apartment, including the screams of his wife, Linda Pang. After the gang members left, Chen found his wife naked and crying in another room. Pang, who was in the bathroom when the gang members entered the apartment, had been forced out of the bathroom by a gang member. For the next two hours, Pang saw approximately five or six robbers, several with guns and at least one with a knife, as she was taken at gunpoint from room to room in the apartment. While in her bedroom, Tung Tran raped Pang at knifepoint. The robbers stole cash and jewelry from the apartment, as well as Chen’s ATM card and access number. Later that night, Sonny Wong saw Danny Ngo, Joseph Wang, Alex Wong, Tung Tran, Brian Chan, and Roger Kwok at one of the gang’s apartments, sorting out proceeds from the robbery of the Hampton Street apartment. Aleck Yim, who was also present at the apartment, recalled that Tung Tran, Steven Ng, Brian Chan, and “other Green Dragon [m]embers” were present and discussed the robbery. b. Identification Procedures and Ruling Below. Pang provided an identification of Tung Tran as a participant in the Hampton Street robbery, and Tran moved unsuccessfully to suppress the identification prior to trial. Because Tran contends that the district court erroneously ruled, following that hearing, that Pang would be allowed to testify at trial, the next three paragraphs of this opinion address the testimony at the pretrial suppression hearing. At the end of January 1990, Pang reviewed approximately 100 loose photographs at the police station, but did not recognize anyone in the photos from the robbery. One week later, the police brought Pang additional photos to review in her home. Pang, Chen, his mother, and a roommate took turns reviewing approximately thirty photos. Although Chen and the roommate each made an identification, Pang failed to recognize anyone from the robbery. Approximately one month later, Pang attended a police lineup of five individuals, but failed to make an identification. On June 12, 1990, Detectives Charles Judson and Peter Blum of the Nassau County Police Department met with Chen and Pang at a coffee shop to show them photo arrays. Judson met with Chen at one table and showed him one set of photos, while Blum sat with Pang at a separate table and showed her a second set. Chen identified Tung Tran and two other participants from this set. Pang identified Brian Chan from the second set. Pursuant to instructions, Chen and Pang then signed their names to the backs of the photographs that they had identified, and initialled the backs of photographs that they had not selected. The two tables then exchanged photographs. When Blum laid this second set of photos before Pang, she “stared” at them, “obviously fixating on one photograph and her eyes were full of tears. She began to cry.” Blum put the photos away and tried to console her for two or three minutes, because “it was obvious she was reliving the incident.” When Pang had composed herself, Blum again laid out the photos. Pang then pointed to a picture of Tung Tran. Blum turned the picture over and had her sign it, and then initial the remaining photographs. Pang signed above her husband’s signature, which he had placed on the reverse side of the photograph after his prior identification of Tran. One week after viewing photos in the coffee shop, Pang viewed additional photographs but did not recognize anyone. On October 18, 1990, in a meeting held at the office of one of the Assistant United States Attorneys handling this case, Detective Blum again showed Pang the photos she had viewed in the coffee shop. Pang again identified the photograph of Tung Tran. Tran’s motion to suppress Pang’s identification testimony was based upon the contention that the identification procedures employed by the police were impermissibly suggestive. Because of the court’s concern that Chen’s signature on the back of Tung Tran’s photograph might have bolstered Pang’s identification, the court heard testimony from Chen and Pang, as well as Judson and Blum, about the suggestiveness of the procedures employed. Pang testified that she initially looked at the second set of pictures “for one or two minutes, and then ... felt very uncomfortable.” After she composed herself, she looked at the pictures for a “few minutes,” and then identified Tran. The writing on the back of the pictures meant “[n]othing much” to her. She did not notice her husband’s signature beneath her signature when she signed the back of Tran’s photograph. The court also questioned Pang about the circumstances under which she had seen her assailant on the night of the robbery. Pang testified that she had seen him face-to-face and looked him “in the eye” for about a minute in “[v]ery clear” lighting. The district court denied Tung Tran’s motion to suppress Pang’s identification, concluding that Pang had not been influenced by the presence of her husband’s signature on the back of Tran’s photo. The court said: In listening carefully to all of this witness’ testimony on direct and cross, and also to her answers to my questions[,] I am prepared to believe her, that she didn’t notice her husband’s signature. This very unassuming, somewhat shy young woman finds it very difficult even now to say what happened to her the night that is at issue here that she was raped. She’s prepared to discuss [that night] in almost any other terms, except when she’s finally asked repeatedly to say exactly what happened to her. I have little difficulty believing that seeing that photograph some months after the rape renewed in her all of the horror of the experience, and that when she did turn it over to sign her name, that that would have been the kind of quick action where she wasn’t particularly paying attention to any of the other names on it. I’m prepared to believe her in this regard. At trial, Chen identified Chiang T. Cheng, Steven Ng, and Brian Chan as among the robbers that night. Pang also identified Cheng, Ng, and Chan at trial, as well as Tung Tran and Danny Ngo. Prior to trial, the defendants requested, and obtained, an in limine ruling to preclude the government from introducing evidence that Pang was raped during the Hampton Street robbery. c. Tran’s Contentions on Appeal. On appeal, Tran renews his contention that the pretrial procedure was suggestive. Tran also argues that because Pang was ordered to keep her head down by the robbers, she did not have an independently reliable basis for the identification. We disagree. The district court’s conclusion that Pang’s agitation kept her from noticing her husband’s signature on Tran’s photo is a finding of fact based on the court’s observation of the witness’ demeanor, and is not clearly erroneous. Moreover, “police suggestiveness does not require the suppression of an identification if the witness was not thereby influenced, as, for example, when the witness’s identification was already positive.” Jarrett, 802 F.2d at 41-42. The evidence is undisputed that Pang identified Tran’s photograph before it was turned over for her to affix her signature on the reverse side, and thus before she had any opportunity to view her husband’s signature. Thus, her identification was firm before the asserted “suggestiveness” came into play. In addition, although our conclusion that Pang’s identification of Tran was not affected by any suggestive police procedure eliminates the need to inquire into the independent reliability of Pang’s identification, see Jacobowitz, 877 F.2d at 168, we note that it exhibits very strong indicia of reliability. Pang had an ample opportunity to view Tran, and the incident understandably held her full attention. See Neil, 409 U.S. at 200 & n. 7, 93 S.Ct. at 383 & n. 7. Pang displayed complete certainty about her identification. Under these circumstances, neither the fact that Pang had not previously provided a description of Tung Tran, nor the fact that her photo identification occurred six months after the incident (and her in-court identification twenty-five months after the incident) renders her identification unreliable. See Jacobowitz, 877 F.2d at 168. Finally, while Tran argues that Pang’s pretrial failure to identify anyone before or after viewing the photo arrays in the coffee shop is an indication that she has no independent recollection of the robbery, it is just as likely (or more likely, given Pang’s opportunity to view the intruders) to be a manifestation of extreme conscientiousness as a witness. See Neil, 409 U.S. at 201, 93 S.Ct. at 383. B. Juvenile Delinquency Act Claims. The Juvenile Delinquency Act (the “JDA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031 et seq., regulates the exercise of federal jurisdiction over juvenile defendants. Section 5032 of the JDA establishes two different certification requirements for juvenile delinquency proceedings in federal courts: (1) a “need certification” provision, requiring certification by the Attorney General that there is a need for the proceedings to take place in federal rather than state court; and (2) a “record certification” provision, requiring delivery to the federal court of any prior juvenile court records or certification by the juvenile court that there are no such records. United States v. Doe, 13 F.3d 302, 303 (9th Cir.1993). The need certification provision directs that a juvenile alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency may not be prosecuted in a federal district court unless the Attorney General certifies to the court that: (1) state courts either do not have or refuse to assume jurisdiction over the juvenile; (2) the state does not have “available programs and services adequate for the needs of juveniles;” or (3) the offense charged is a violent felony, or is one of several enumerated narcotics- and firearm-related offenses, and there is a substantial federal interest in the case or the offense to warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 5032. Certification is a prerequisite to the exercise of federal jurisdiction over juveniles. See United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1396 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 330, 130 L.Ed.2d 289 (1994); United States v. Chambers, 944 F.2d 1253, 1258-60 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1217, 117 L.Ed.2d 455 (1992); United States v. Juvenile Male, 923 F.2d 614, 618 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Brian N., 900 F.2d 218, 222 n. 8 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 669 n. 1 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1035, 108 S.Ct. 742, 98 L.Ed.2d 777 (1988). If the Attorney General does not certify the case, “such juvenile shall be surrendered to the appropriate legal authorities of [the] State.” § 5032. While proper certification confers jurisdiction upon the district court, it does not determine whether the government must proceed against the defendant as a juvenile, with the extra procedural protections afforded by the JDA, or as an adult in a criminal prosecution. See id.; Chambers, 944 F.2d at 1261. A federal district court may convene itself as a juvenile court under the JDA. See Brian N., 900 F.2d at 222. When a juvenile who is not a previous offender is alleged to have committed a violent felony or one of several specified narcotics-related offenses, the Attorney General may make a motion to transfer the juvenile to adult proceedings. § 5032. This motion may be granted if, after a hearing, the district court finds that “such transfer would be in the interest of justice” considering, inter alia, the juvenile’s age, background, prior delinquency record, and maturity. Id.; see also United States v. Elwood, 993 F.2d 1146, 1149 (5th Cir.1998). For previous offenders charged with committing crimes after the age of sixteen that involve the threat, use, or substantial risk of use of physical force, or enumerated narcotics-related offenses, transfer to the district court is automatic. § 5032. The record certification provision specifies that: Any proceedings against a juvenile under this chapter or as an adult shall not be commenced until any prior juvenile court records of such juvenile have been received by the court, or the clerk of the juvenile court has certified in writing that the juvenile has no prior record, or that the juvenile’s record is unavailable and why it is unavailable. Id. (emphasis added). Courts have read the mandatory language of this provision to establish the certification of records as a prerequisite to the exercise of federal jurisdiction. See Doe, 13 F.3d at 304; United States v. M.I.M., 932 F.2d 1016, 1019-20 (1st Cir.1991); Juvenile Male, 923 F.2d at 620; Brian N., 900 F.2d at 222-23. Under the JDA, juvenile proceedings commence with the filing of an information. See Doe, 13 F.3d at 304; M.I.M., 932 F.2d at 1019; Brian N., 900 F.2d at 221; In re Martin, 788 F.2d 696, 698 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1009, 106 S.Ct. 3306, 92 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986). 3. Jurisdiction over Juvenile Offenses of Wong and Ngo. In convicting Alex Wong of substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy violations, the jury found Alex Wong had committed five predicate acts: (1) the murder and/or conspiracy to murder Mon Hsiung Ting and Anthony Gallivan at the Tien Chiau Restaurant on July 16,1989 (racketeering act no. 2); (2) the conspiracy to murder Carol Huang, a witness to the Tien Chiau shootings, which occurred between October 1990 and November 19, 1990 (racketeering act no. 6); (3) the robbery at 40-15 Hampton Street on January 23, 1990 (racketeering act no. 9); (4) the extortion of the High Pearl Restaurant during the spring of 1989 (racketeering act no. 14); and (5) the bribery of a public official during August 1990 (racketeering act no. 21). Wong was also convicted of conspiring to commit murder to maintain or increase his position in a RICO enterprise for his participation in the plot to murder Carol Huang. Wong had his eighteenth birthday on October 25, 1990. With the sole exception of the conspiracy to murder Carol Huang, Wong committed all of the charged RICO predicate acts while a juvenile. Nevertheless, the government never certified this case for prosecution in the district court pursuant to the JDA or moved to have Wong transferred to adult status. After his conviction, Wong moved to dismiss the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy counts on the ground that he was not an adult during the commission of either crime. Wong argued that the definition of “pattern of racketeering activity,” which requires “at least two acts of racketeering activity,” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), would not support a RICO or RICO conspiracy conviction absent proof that the defendant had committed two or more predicate acts as an adult. Because the government did not move to transfer Wong’s case to adult status pursuant to the JDA, Wong argued, his activities prior to his eighteenth birthday were to be deemed acts of juvenile delinquency outside the juris - diction of the federal courts and could not constitute RICO predicate acts. In an oral opinion rendered July 17, 1992, the district court denied Wong’s motion, holding that substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy were “continuing crimes,” and that Wong’s commission of a single predicate act as an adult was sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over Wong to be tried as an adult. Similarly, in convicting Danny Ngo of substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy violations, the jury found that he had committed three predicate acts: (1) conspiracy to murder the leader of the rival gang known as the “Tung On” at the 888 Restaurant in Queens in February 1987 (racketeering act no. 7); (2) the robbery at 40-15 Hampton Street on January 23, 1990 (racketeering act no. 9); and (8) conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion of Jack Tran in August 1990 (racketeering act no. 12). Ngo did not turn eighteen until May 24, 1988, after the occurrence of the conspiracy to murder the Tung On leader. Apparently because Ngo was a juvenile at the time of this offense, a separate count of the indictment charging Ngo with participation in the conspiracy was dismissed prior to trial, although the indictment continued to include the crime as a predicate act of the RICO counts. Ngo evidently did not raise this argument before the district court. Because his argument implicates subject matter jurisdiction over his case, however, we are obliged to address it. See Alexander v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 990 F.2d 536, 538 (10th Cir.1993); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 618 n. 27 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981); Fed. R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2). On appeal, Wong and Ngo contend that their acts as juveniles are not subject to federal jurisdiction absent certification by the Attorney General and a motion by the government to transfer the ease to adult status pursuant to the JDA. They argue that because certain discrete offenses were completed while they were juveniles, the district court had no jurisdiction over those acts as RICO predicate acts. Wong also argues that: (1) because he did not commit two predicate acts required to establish a “pattern of racketeering,” see § 1961(5), after his eighteenth birthday, and because the acts that he committed while a juvenile are properly considered acts of juvenile delinquency, his convictions for substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy violations must be reversed; and (2) his pre-eighteen acts did not constitute “racketeering activity,” as defined in the RICO statute, because they were not “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Wong and Ngo were properly convicted on RICO counts that included predicate acts that they committed before the age of eighteen. The JDA pertains to juveniles who are “alleged to have committed an act of juvenile delinquency.” § 5032. “Juvenile delinquency” is defined as,“the violation of a law of the United States committed by a person prior, to his eighteenth birthday which would have been a crime if committed by an adult.” § 5031; see supra note 3. The relevant “act” for purposes of determining federal jurisdiction under § 5032 is the crime charged in the indictment — here, the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy offenses alleged therein — rather than the discrete predicate acts underlying those charges. Cf. United States v. Welch, 15 F.3d 1202, 1207 n. 5 (1st Cir.1993) (“The term ‘alleged act,’ as used in § 5031, means the alleged offense, not each separate act comprising the offense.”), cert.0 denied, — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 1661, 1863, 128 L.Ed.2d 377 (1994). Thus, to procure federal jurisdiction over a ease, the Attorney General must certify to the court that the offense charged, rather than any of the acts comprising that offense, is a crime that may be prosecuted under § 5032. See Baker, 10 F.3d at 1394 (general nature of charged conspiracy to distribute marijuana,, rather than defendant’s violent overt acts, determines whether offense was “crime of violence”). Accordingly, to determine whether the JDA governs a prosecution, a court should look to the defendant’s age at the time of the offense or offenses charged in the indictment. Wong and Ngo began committing the RICO offenses charged in counts one and two of the indictment while they were juveniles, but continued to do so after their eighteenth birthdays. Because the RICO offenses were not “committed by a [defendant] prior to his eighteenth birthday,” § 5031, these offenses are not subject to the requirements of the JDA. It is well established that federal courts have jurisdiction over conspiracies begun while a defendant was a minor but completed after his eighteenth birthday. “The [JDA] does not ... prevent an adult criminal defendant from being tried as an adult simply because he first became embroiled in the conspiracy with which he is charged while still a minor....” United States v. Spoone, 741 F.2d 680, 687 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1162, 105 S.Ct. 917, 83 L.Ed.2d 929 (1985); see also Welch, 15 F.3d at 1207 n. 5 (“the [JDA] cannot be read to preclude an adult conspiracy prosecution simply because the accused’s participation in the conspiracy began while he was under age eighteen”); United States v. Maddox, 944 F.2d 1223, 1233 (6th Cir.1991) (“one who enters a conspiracy prior to his eighteenth birthday can be tried as an adult if he continues in the conspiracy after that time”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 400, 610, 116 L.Ed.2d 349 (1991), — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 948, 117 L.Ed.2d 117, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1219, 117 L.Ed.2d 456, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1978, 118 L.Ed.2d 577, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2317, 119 L.Ed.2d 236 (1992), modified, 12 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1328, 127 L.Ed.2d 675 (1994); United States v. Harris, 944 F.2d 784, 785-86 (10th Cir.1991) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 903, 116 L.Ed.2d 804 (1992); United States v. Doerr, 886 F.2d 944, 969 (7th Cir.1989) (same) (quoting United States v. Cruz, 805 F.2d 1464, 1475 (11th Cir.1986) (quoting Spoone, 741 F.2d at 687), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1006, 107 S.Ct. 1631, 95 L.Ed.2d 204, 482 U.S. 930, 107 S.Ct. 3215, 96 L.Ed.2d 702 (1987)); United States v. Gjonaj, 861 F.2d 143, 144 (6th Cir.1988) (same) (quoting Spoone, 741 F.2d at 687). Because conspiracy is a continuing crime that “endures until its objectives are either completed or abandoned,” United States v. Lovell, 16 F.3d 494, 497 (2d Cir.1994), a federal court may assume jurisdiction over a defendant ‘“upon a “threshold demonstration of post-eighteen conspiracy activity.” ’ ” Maddox, 944 F.2d at 1233 (quoting Gjonaj, 861 F.2d at 144 (quoting Cruz, 805 F.2d at 1476)). This concept has been analogized to contract “ratification” doctrine: just as a minor legally incapable of entering a contract may nonetheless be found to have “ratified” a contract by taking actions after attaining majority consistent with an intent to be bound by it, see, e.g., Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Vita Italian Restaurant, Inc., 171 A.D.2d 926, 927, 566 N.Y.S.2d 796, 797-98 (3d Dep’t 1991); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 380(1) (1981), so a defendant may ratify his pre-eighteen participation in a conspiracy by continued participation after attaining majority. See Welch, 15 F.3d at 1211-12 (defendant’s post-eighteen participation ratified pre-eighteen involvement in conspiracy); Maddox, 944 F.2d at 1233 (same). Both substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy offenses are continuing crimes. See United States v. Moscony, 927 F.2d 742, 754 (3d Cir.) (substantive RICO is continuing offense analogous to conspiracy), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211, 111 S.Ct. 2812, 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991); United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 838 (2d Cir.) (RICO conspiracy not complete until purposes accomplished or abandoned), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 982, 110 S.Ct. 515, 107 L.Ed.2d 516 (1989). It follows that Wong’s conviction for conspiring to murder Carol Huang and Ngo’s robbery and extortion convictions establish the requisite post-eighteen conduct to furnish the district court with jurisdiction over the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy charges of which they were convicted. ' Wong contends, however, that under the JDA he “cannot be held liable for pre-eighteen conduct,” Maddox, 944 F.2d at 1233, and thus his pre-majority acts cannot serve as the basis for criminal liability under RICO. See also United States v. Odom, 13 F.3d 949, 957 (6th Cir.) (same, citing Maddox, 944 F.2d at 1233), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1859, 128 L.Ed.2d 481 (1994), - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 116, 130 L.Ed.2d 62 (1994). Because the indictment charged Wong with only one predicate act as an adult, Wong further claims that the government failed to establish the “pattern” of racketeering activity required to support a conviction for a substantive RICO or RICO conspiracy violation. These contentions are without merit. Both Maddox and Odom affirmed convictions for conspiracies that bridged the pertinent defendant’s eighteenth birthday. In Odom, the court decided only that evidence of pre-eighteen conduct was admissible, adding the gratuitous observation that such conduct could not support criminal liability. See 13 F.3d at 957. Neither case posed or addressed the RICO issue that we must address. Further, nothing in the text of the JDA would divest the district court of jurisdiction over Wong and Ngo’s pre-eighteen predicate acts. This court has held that a defendant can be held criminally liable for pre-eighteen conduct so long as the prosecution begins after the defendant is twenty-one years of age, thereby precluding application of the JDA. See Hoo, 825 F.2d at 669-70 (collecting cases). As noted earlier, the JDA regulates jurisdiction with respect to the charged offense (here, substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy), not the individual acts comprising the offense. Thus, “once having established that certain acts of the offense occurred after the defendant’s eighteenth birthday, the entire case may be tried in accordance with the adult rules of procedure and evidence.” Cruz, 805 F.2d at 1477; see also Welch, 15 F.3d at 1211; Doerr, 886 F.2d at 969-70. Further, this court has held in the statute-of-limitations context that jurisdiction over a single RICO predicate act confers jurisdiction over other predicate acts, including some that could not be prosecuted separately. Because the limitations period is measured from the point at which the crime is complete, see United States v. Persico, 832 F.2d 705, 713 (2d Cir.1987) (citing Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115, 90 S.Ct. 858, 860, 25 L.Ed.2d 156 (1970)), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1022, 108 S.Ct. 1995, 100 L.Ed.2d 227, 488 U.S. 982, 109 S.Ct. 532, 102 L.Ed.2d 564 (1988), a defendant may be liable under substantive RICO for predicate acts the separate prosecution of which would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations, so long as that defendant committed one predicate act within the five-year limitations period. See id. at 714; see also United States v. Salerno, 868 F.2d 524, 534 (2d Cir.) (same, citing Persico, 832 F.2d at 714), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3192, 105 L.Ed.2d 700, 493 U.S. 811, 110 S.Ct. 56, 107 L.Ed.2d 24 (1989). Similarly, a defendant is liable for participation in a RICO conspiracy for predicate acts the separate prosecution of which would be time-barred, so long as that defendant has not withdrawn from the conspiracy during the limitations period. See Salerno, 868 F.2d at 534; Persico, 832 F.2d at 713. While statutes of limitation are designed to serve different ends than the JDA, cf. Welch, 15 F.3d at 1211 & n. 12, the continuing nature of RICO offenses and the interest in avoiding multiple prosecutions for a single course of criminal conduct indicate that a similar result is warranted here. Finally, Wong argues that because the government did not move to transfer his case to adult status, his pre-eighteen acts should properly have been considered acts of juvenile delinquency, and thus did not constitute “racketeering activity” as defined in the RICO statute because they were not “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). We disagree. Section 1961(1)(A) includes within the definition of “racketeering activity” any act or threat involving, inter alia, murder, robbery, extortion, or bribery “which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” Each of Wong’s pre-eighteen predicate acts was a felony punishable under New York law by imprisonment for more than one year except the extortion and conspiracy to extort the High Pearl Restaurant, which was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. A person who violates § 1951 may be “imprisoned not more than twenty years.” Id. The possibility that, as a juvenile, Wong would have avoided incarceration is “wholly irrelevant,” United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1564 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1486, 117 L.Ed.2d 628 (1992), to the question whether the underlying conduct satisfies the definition of racketeering activity set forth in § 1961(1)(A). The statutory definition is met if the charged conduct generally is punishable by one year of incarceration under state law. See Coonan, 938 F.2d at 1564 (§ 1961(1)(A) “merely describes the type of generic conduct which will serve as a RICO predicate and satisfy RICO’s pattern requirement.”); United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 566 (2d Cir.1988) (“New York’s rules governing double jeopardy and consecutive sentencing do not affect the generic definition of the crime of bribery.”), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 1637, 104 L.Ed.2d 153 (1989); United States v. Paone, 782 F.2d 386, 393 (2d Cir.1986) (“The [RICO] statute is meant to define, in a more generic sense, the wrongful conduct that constitutes the predicates for a federal racketeering charge.”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 882, 107 S.Ct. 269, 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986), 483 U.S. 1019, 107 S.Ct. 3261, 97 L.Ed.2d 761 (1987). We conclude that the defendant’s age at the time the substantive RICO or RICO conspiracy offense is completed is the relevant age for purposes of the JDA, and that an adult defendant may properly be held hable under RICO for predicate offenses committed as a juvenile. Accordingly, the district court properly had subject matter jurisdiction over the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy counts that incorporated the predicate acts committed by Wong and Ngo as juveniles. 4. Transfer of Roger Kwok’s Juvenile Court Records. Roger Kwok was arrested on November 19, 1990. Because he was then only seventeen years old (he was born April 5, 1973), the government charged him in a separate juvenile complaint with conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering. At the same time, the United States Attorney certified that the crimes charged against Kwok were violent felonies and that there was a substantial federal interest in the case to warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction