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