Appellant made a criminal threat for the benefit of a street gang, and was sentenced to prison. On appeal, he contended that the appellate court should apply a Ninth Circuit decision (Garcia v. Carey) requiring that for a gang enhancement that the crime be committed with the intent to enable of further other criminal conduct by the gang, and that therefore there was insufficient evidence here to support the gang enhancement. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that Garcia misinterpreted California law. The statute’s plain language requires only a showing of specific intent to promote or further any conduct by the gang members, rather than other criminal conduct. Appellant’s own threat qualified as the gang-related criminal activity; no further evidence on this element was necessary.