What behavior? I think you made the whole thing up and you certainly did not prove your case.
Was your sceme worth $300,000?  

12          US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION v. AWAPPA
It is no surprise, then, that the conduct USAP A alleges 
closely resembles conduct we have found not to demonstrate 
continuity after H.J. Inc. See, e.g., GE Inv. Partners, 247 F.3d 
at 549 (finding no continuity where the defendants' "single 
goal" was to fraudulently inflate the value of and then sell 
their controlling interest in a company); Menasco, 886 F.2d at 
684 (finding no continuity where "[djefendants' actions were 
narrowly directed towards a single ... goal," "involved but 
one set of victims," and took place over a relatively short 
period of time).
Because the appropriate "commonsensical, fact-specific" 
examination of the allegations in USAPA's complaint fails to 
yield a pattern of racketeering activity, USAPA has failed to 
state a cognizable RICO claim. See Menasco, 886 F.2d at 684. 
Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the 
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
IV.
We can quickly dispose of USAPA's remaining 
contentions-that the district court erred in denying it leave 
to amend its complaint and in refusing to grant it injunctive 
relief.
"We review the district court's denial ofleave to amend the 
complaint for an abuse of discretion." GE Inv. Partners, 247 
F.3d at 548. The district court does not abuse its discretion in 
denying leave when "amendment would be futile. II ld. Having 
reviewed the proposed amendments. we conclude that they 
would have no impact on the outcome of the motion to dis- 
miss. Thus. the district court did not abuse its discretion.
We also review the grant or denial of injunctive relief for 
an abuse of discretion. See MUffley ex reI. NLRB v. Spartan 
Mining Co . 570 F.3d 534. 543 (4th Cir. 2009). Because 
USAPA's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief 
could be granted