United States v. Castro

“bag told him that he was a man” and that three reasons. Massey’s argument for reject talking privately DiRocco First, recording the entire saw Tiseo tape contained Second, Sepe Massey’s in- We find that court and Gelber. charge. the district jury therefore, merit; allegations lack do the instructions to follow structed Brady evidentiary hearing. disregard any of the not warrant a and not to “as a whole” fact, Third, Massey exists to none of the affidavits filed no evidence instructions. support evidentiary for an tape recording impaired the of his motion that the suggest hearing exculpatory court’s contained evidence.11 jury’s ability to follow the district Thus, Massey’s Massey Similarly, allegations gov- that the we conclude that instructions. recording suppressed impeachment favorable tape that ernment has failed to show merit; therefore, lacks taped instruc- evidence also we was so cumbersome unnecessary argu- find it to address these seriously affected the fairness of his tions Accordingly, hold that integrity jury’s verdict. ments. the dis- trial and abuse, its error. trict court did not discretion Accordingly, we find no reversible denying Massey’s Brady claim without an Brady Evidentiary Hearing evidentiary hearing. D.

Finally, Massey contends CONCLUSION denying without an court erred district evidentiary hearing for new trial his motion foregoing For reasons we affirm the allegation on an based appellant’s convictions and sentences. exculpatory in vio to disclose evidence failed AFFIRMED. Brady Maryland, v. lation of We re S.Ct. of an eviden

view the district court’s denial hearing

tiary for abuse of discretion. Slocum, 587, 600

Cir.1983). violation, Brady

To establish a “(1) prosecu defendant must show America, UNITED STATES of (2) evidence, suppressed the evidence tion Plaintiff-Appellant, suppressed was favorable to the defense or sup exculpatory, and the evidence Starrett, 55 F.3d at pressed was material.” Luongo, CASTRO, Arthur William “ is material 1555. evidence ‘[F]avorable Lechtner, Harry Boehme, Nancy sup from its and constitutional error results Defendants-Appellants. government, if there is a pression that, probability had the evi reasonable No. 94-4338. defense, the re been disclosed to the dence Appeals, Court of have dif proceeding sult of the would been Eleventh Circuit. ” Starrett, (quoting 55 F.3d at 1555

ferent.’ — -, -, Whitley, Kyles v. July 1996. (1995)). 1555, 1565, 131 L.Ed.2d Massey alleges failed testimony following before

to disclose the Becky Ramos testi- grand Massey told her that

fied that Tiseo corruption; in the circuit court

not involved (2) Frank DiRoceo testified that Tiseo trial, assertions, “I no knowl- she states: had Contrary Massey's did tion for new Ramos Massey anything testify Massey no do with edge that Tiseo told her that had had that Arthur corruption. involvement Rather, in the circuit court corruption Judicial Circuit.” of the Eleventh supporting Massey’s mo- in her affidavit county served Gelber elected County judge

court for Dade since 1987 and previously practiced had as a criminal de- attorney. fense Metropolitan County, Dade circuit court judges authority appoint special have the (SAPDs) public ap- assistant defenders compensation their terms for which County Metropolitan payment Dade issues upon receipt approved a court bill. Short- ly assuming position after of circuit court judge, Gelber had discussions with another judge, Sepe, regard- circuit court Alfonso C. FL, Gr., Flynn, Vincent J. Coconut Scott ing making appointments for kick- SAPD Miami, FL, Srebnick, for A. Castro. Sepe arranged ap- backs. to have Gelber White, Miami, FL, Luongo. Charles G. Massey, lawyer, point Arthur as an SAPD appointed return for kickbacks. Gelber Dusen, Rrieger, W. Van Albert J. Susan Massey to some eases and received kickbacks P.A., Miami, FL, for Lechtner. Likewise, appointments. Judge for those Prebish, FL, Miami, for Gregory A. Harvey Shenberg arranged N. for Gelber to Boehme. appoint Manny Miguel Casabielle and De- Luskin, Luskin, Comey, Boyd Robert D. & Grandy, lawyers, in as SAPDs return for DC, Washington, for Castro. payments. kickback Keefer, Jr., Atty., A. U.S. John J. William August In state and federal law Schultz, O’Sullivan, Ruth Kathleen M. Anne procured enforcement officials the services of Hertz, D. Salyer, Linda Lawrence Collins Takiff, Raymond lawyer, in un- to act an LaVecchio, Miami, FL, Attys., Asst. for corrupt lawyer in capacity as dercover appellee. investigation. Operation Court Broom From in

August engaged 1989 to June Takiff corrupt activities with number of Gelber judges and other in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Most of Gelber’s conversations BARKETT, and Before HATCHETT tape- regarding illegal Takiff conduct were GODBOLD, Judges, and Senior Circuit Takiff enlisted Gelber and other recorded. Judge. Circuit paying judges ranging in activities from kick- fixing releasing the name backs and eases HATCHETT, Judge: Circuit believing that the of a confidential informant “Operation appeal, Broom” this Court Sepe, Shenberg, informant would be killed. appellants’ affirm the convictions and sen- Judge Philip participated Davis and S. tences. many of the schemes. During period, recruit- the relevant Gelber FACTS secretary him in the kickback ed his to assist secretary if 1980s, she law scheme. Gelber asked In the late federal and state any lawyers willing to “Operation who would be enforcement officials conducted knew Broom,” in return for investigation alleged accept appointments as SAPDs Court an into Upon agreement, her corrupt occurring among judges paying him kickbacks. activities secretary as a conduit to lawyers County Florida Gelber used the and the Dade join lawyers agreeing to the kickback targets of the Circuit Court. One of the Gelber, secretary approached Arthur Roy scheme. The investigation, T. took the office Boehme, Harry Nancy Luongo, and Lecht- judge the Eleventh Judi- of circuit court for ner, join in the January lawyers, asking all them County cial Circuit Dade lawyers agreed judge in All of the becoming a circuit court kickback scheme. Prior to exchange Appellants moved to dismiss the RICO appointments accept SAPD count, fraud, bribery mail and kickbacks. paying for failure to state an offense. The counts Castro, a law- approached William Gelber July court denied these motions. district possibility of yer, fall 1989 about the in the 1992, appellants first round of filed their investing corporation. in Gelber’s Castro prejudicial severance motions based on mis- corpora- in the did not want to invest Castro joinder seeking separate trials from each tion, financial- agreed to assist Gelber but he other, Massey, eodefendant and the indicted receiving ly through paying kickbacks for judges. The district court severed the trial appointments. Gelber and Castro SAPD Goodhart, Judges Sepe, Shenberg, twenty pay agreed that Castro would Gelber trial, appellants’ Davis from and severed percent anticipated of his fees within few Massey’s appellants. trial from the The dis- receiving days appointments. Gelber be- subsequent trict court denied mo- cases, gan appointing and Castro Castro tions to sever their trials from each other. paid appointments. kickbacks for those Gel- 25,1993. began trial on At the The October average payment ber kickback received case-in-chief, government’s ap- close of the $1,000 from Castro. A few months after pellants judgment acquittal moved for on Gelber, began paying Castro kickbacks to all counts under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules bring Castro convinced Gelber Kent of Criminal Procedure. The district court Wheeler, lawyer, into the kickback scheme. denied the motions. renewed the intermediary Castro served as an between case, motions at the conclusion of their and Wheeler because did not Gelber Gelber again district court denied the motions. know Wheeler well. guilty The returned verdicts all as to appellants on all counts. 8,1991, From October 1989 to June Gelber sixty-four appointed Castro to cases and re- The district court sentenced Castro to con- $77,000 January thirty-seven impris- in of ceived kickbacks. From current terms months onment, 8, 1991, release, years supervised appointed 1990 to June Gelber three and $1,400 thirty-seven pay special and ordered him to a Wheeler to cases received assess- $34,000 Similarly, ap- Luongo in ment. The district court sentenced kickbacks. Gelber $13,000 pointed thirty-seven imprisonment, Boehme to twelve cases for months three kickbacks; release, years supervised in Lechtner to four cases for and ordered him to $7,000 kickbacks; Luongo thirty- pay and court fines. The district sen- $850 $20,000 one cases for over in kickbacks. tenced Lechtner to concurrent terms of thir-

ty imprisonment, years super- months three release, pay vised and ordered her $300 PROCEDURAL HISTORY special assessment. The district court sen- tenced Boehme to concurrent terms of twen- 27, 1992, May grand jury in On a federal ty-four years imprisonment, months two su- the Southern District of Florida returned a release, pervised pay him and ordered superseding against 106-count indictment special appeal assessment. This fol- $500 Castro, Luongo, Harry William Arthur lowed. Boehme, Lechtner, Nancy (appellants) and Harvey Shenberg, codefendants N. Alfonso CONTENTIONS Davis, Goodhart, Sepe, Phillip David Ar- and First, Massey. charged appel- thur appellants govern- The indictment that contend the conspiracy lants with prove single to violate RICO vio- ment failed to of a the existence 1962(d) 1963(a), §§ conspiracy. lation of 18 and U.S.C. RICO assert that the §§ government proof multiple mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. offered con- bribery spiracies, imper- violation of 18 U.S.C. and that this constitutes 666(a)(2).1 § charge missible variance from the Gelber, co-conspirator, pleaded government. an unindicted guilty conspiracy to RICO and testified for the conspiracy regardless within Appellants also claim that the the of the unre- conspiracy. their trial failure to sever latedness of the acts of the other district court’s members of Second, appel misjoinder. conspiracy long government to a the as as the can amounted government failed agreement objective lants contend show an on an overall or that evidence sufficient to establish present agreed that the defendant to the commission “operation or man they agreed acts, to affect the predicate individually two or more or enterprise required agement” of the RICO through government others. The contends Young, Ernst & under Reves v. that no material variance occurred because a 1163, 122L.Ed.2d 525 reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of Third, appellants contend that the district Also, reason, single conspiracy. for this prosecutor’s and the court’s instructions government appellants contends that constructively amended summation properly joined. were count of the indictment RICO referring to the Eleventh Judicial Circuit as Second, government contends that the enterprise, than the Circuit the RICO rather appellants conspir- were convicted of RICO Ap- Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Court of the acy, and not a substantive RICO offense. court’s in- pellants insists that the district Therefore, government only allege had to prosecutor’s and the summation structions prove appellants “agreed” expansion of indictment resulted in an operation management affect the failed to introduce because enterprise, appellants RICO and not that the demonstrating that evidence the Circuit actually exerted control or over direction Eleventh Judicial Circuit affect- Court Third, enterprise. govern- the RICO ed interstate commerce. ment prosecutor’s contends when the Fourth, appellants contend that their brib- summation and the district court’s instruc- ery cannot stand because the evi- convictions context, tions are viewed it is clear that no failed to intended to dence Fourth, constructive amendment occurred. agent Metropolitan influence an Dade contends that the evidence argue County. Specifically, appellants presented at trial was sufficient to establish government charged Metropolitan since the intended to influence an County agency receiving federal Dade as the agent Metropolitan County. Dade grant money, gov- under 18 U.S.C. Fifth, government contends that ernment had to bribes §§ plain language of 18 1341 and 1346 U.S.C. were intended to influence or reward governmental does exclude entities such Metropolitan County. agent of Dade coverage a mail state from under the Fifth, appellants contend that the mail government fraud statute. also asserts The Appel- fraud counts fail to state an offense. already rejected that this circuit has a void- § does not lants assert 18 U.S.C. 1346 for-vagueness challenge to section protect sovereign state from fraudulent Sixth, government prop- contends that it Also, deprivation intangible rights. appel- erly credibility argued the of the witness lants maintain that the term “honest ser- on the evidence in the record and did based unconstitutionally vices” section 1346 is prejudicial during closing not make remarks Sixth, vague. appellants contend Seventh, arguments. government con- prosecutor impermissibly vouched for the tends that the district court did not abuse its credibility government of a witness and made proffer preventing appellants’ discretion in improper prejudicial during and remarks specific prior con- extrinsic evidence show Seventh, closing arguments. appellants con- impeach government duct to witness. prevent- tend that the district court erred offering prove a ing them from evidence to ISSUES self-interest, bias, government and witness’s motive. appeal in this are: The issues we address (1)

First, misjoinder government that a whether a material variance or contends (2) occurred; evidence ex- conspiracy charge brings a defendant whether sufficient RICO — denied, U.S.-, 1994), appellants conspired cert. isted to establish (3) 2568, 132 enterprise; L.Ed.2d 820 participate in the RICO court’s instructions and whether the district reviewing prosecu claim of constructively prosecutor’s summations (1) misconduct, torial we assess whether the conspiracy count of the amended RICO (2) challenged improper comments were and (4) indictment; appellants whether were so, they prejudicially if whether affected the bribery under 18 properly convicted rights of the defendant. United substantial (5) 666(a)(2); appellants whether U.S.C. (11th 1307, Obregon, States v. 893 F.2d for mail fraud under properly were convicted denied, Cir.), 1090, cert. 494 U.S. (6) 1346; 1341, prose- §§ whether 18 U.S.C. 108 L.Ed.2d 961 We review through imper- cutorial misconduct occurred evidentiary rulings court’s for abuse district vouching credibility missible for witness’s Calle, of discretion. United States v. remarks; through improper and (11th Cir.1987). Finally, our F.2d the district court abused its discre- whether legal review of a district court’s conclusion is proffered excluding appellants’ evi- tion in Waymer, de novo. United States v. dence. (11th Cir.1995). 564, 568 STANDARDS OF REVIEW DISCUSSION appeal multiple

This involves issues differing requiring standards of review. We I. Material Variance and Joinder claim of a material variance review the Appellants gov contend that at best the light through viewing the evidence proof ernment’s at trial revealed the exis most favorable to the to deter multiple conspiracies though tence of even mine whether a reasonable trier of fact could only charged single conspir the indictment single conspiracy have found that a existed reason, acy. For this claim that a beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. material variance occurred that constitutes (11th Reed, Cir.), under reversible error Suth 509 U.S. erland, (5th Cir. Unit A uphold We will the con 1981), viction unless the variance was material (1982).2 71 L.Ed.2d 663 (2) substantially prejudiced the defen improperly also contend that were Reed, dant. 980 F.2d at 1581. Our review of joined because the failed to misjoinder plenary. the claim of is any prove that of them knew about other Morales, lawyers participating in the kickback scheme Cir.1989). of them whether knew of the exis sufficiency of the We review the single conspiracy. of a tence novo, viewing evidence de the evidence in the light government most favorable to the A material variance between an drawing government’s proof in all reasonable inferences favor of indictment and the at Church, jury’s government proves verdict. v. trial occurs if the multi United States (11th 688, Cir.), denied, ple conspiracies alleging 693 cert. an under indictment 881, 233, only single conspiracy. 506 113 S.Ct. 121 L.Ed.2d 169 a v. U.S. Kotteakos Unit (1992). States, 750, 1239, evaluating In whether the indictment ed 328 U.S. 66 S.Ct. 90 (1946). amended, constructively prove was the L.Ed. 1557 In we order to review conspiracy, district court’s instructions and the RICO must show prosecutor’s agreement “in an summation context” to deter to violate a substantive RICO Gonzalez, expansion provision. mine whether an of the indictment v. 921 United States (11th 1530, Cir.), denied, literally occurred either or in effect. United F.2d 1539 cert. 502 (11th 503, 860, 178, Behety, States v. 509 Cir. U.S. 112 S.Ct. 116 L.Ed.2d 140 Prichard, City Appeals 2. Bonner v. In 661 F.2d 1206 former Fifth Circuit Court of rendered (en (11th Cir.1981) hanc), 1, the Eleventh Circuit prior to October adopted binding precedent all decisions of the

1451 (1991). participate government must in and awareness others also Specifically, the single agreed partici participated conspiracy. in a For ex- conspirators prove that the secretary indirectly ample, appel- in affairs of an when Gelber’s asked directly pate pattern racketeering lant Boehme to enroll the kickback enterprise through a 1962(d) (West 1984); scheme, she asked him whether he wished activity. 18 U.S.C.A. Sutherland, 1181, join “preferred appoint- F.2d list” for court v. (5th 1981), Similarly, appellant A cert. de ments. Lechtner was 1191-1192 Cir. Unit nied, 71 informed that a kickback scheme was “some- thing being that’s done” in the Circuit Court L.Ed.2d Appellant Eleventh Circuit. Judicial government may prove the The actually lawyer Castro recruited another “agreement” participate of an existence join light the kickback scheme. In of this conspiracy through showing a RICO evidence, appellant agreed find that each we agreement on an overall ob existence of an objective agreed personally on an overall agreement, of an jective, or in the absence predicate to commit two or more acts objective that the defendant on an overall appointments. paying kickbacks for SAPD personally to commit two or more agreed Church, that, Additionally contrary v. we note predicate acts. United States (11th Cir.1992), assertions, proving the exis F.2d conspiracy, single gov 121 L.Ed.2d 169 tence of a RICO U.S. meeting proof on ernment does not need to that each In its burden objec agreed every conspir showing agreement conspirator on an overall other ator, tive, conspirators, direct evi knew of his fellow must offer conspiracy, explicit agreement on an overall aware of all of the details of the dence of an or, participating in objective contemplated of direct evi or the same the absence dence, Pepe, circum crime. government must offer related United States (11th Cir.1984).3 demonstrating In view “that each F.2d 659-60 stantial evidence necessarily ing light in the most favorable must have known the evidence defendant participate government, in to the could have reason conspiring others were also through pattern ably agreement that one common enterprise the same concluded Sutherland, single objective existed. racketeering activity.” on a overall Conse also, Valera, 1193-94; quently, we find that no material variance see Cir.1988), 929-30 occurred. considering appellants’ mis In L.Ed.2d claim, joinder recognize that the Federal joinder ease, prohibit charged Rules of Criminal Procedure In this the indictment govern unless the indictment covered conspiracy, and the of defendants RICO transaction or the same presented adequately the same act or ment evidence Fed.R.Crim.P. single conspiracy. series of acts or transactions. proved the existence of 8(b). trial, circuit we have observed that that he informed the this At Gelber testified separate part are only or not offenses “[w]hether would not receive 8(b) under of a of acts or transactions’ appointments from him but also from anoth ‘series ... of the facts judge light depends of this on the relatedness er the circuit court. underlying offense.... testimony, appellant [W]hen knew that at least each each closely underlying each offense are so judges agreed to use the Circuit facts two circuit proof of such facts is neces Circuit to connected Court the Eleventh Judicial offense, joinder sary to to establish each engage in a kickback scheme. addition proper.” testimony, and offenses is United other evidence adduced defendants Gelber’s (5th Welch, 1039, 1049 F.2d Cir. appellants’ agreement v. 656 at trial indicates v. El upon them." United States "embarks as he understands liott, 3. We note that when defendant 880, Cir.1978) outline, (5th (quoting he takes 571 F.2d 905 a criminal venture of indefinite Andolschek, 503, membership, 142 F.2d 507 so United States v. his chances as to its content (2d 1944). purposes they Cir. be it that fall within the common 1452 1981) liability indirectly,” is not confined to (quoting United States v. Gen RICO

AUnit (5th Cir.1974)), 626, position formal in the enter- tile, cert. those with a F.2d 630 495 Reves, 178-80, 1767, 1768, denied, 915, prise. 507 U.S. at 113 S.Ct. 72 102 S.Ct. 456 U.S. (1982). language at 1170.5 The in Reves indicates 173 L.Ed.d persons appellants’ position fall within evidence existed more than sufficient Since 1962(c)’s coverage scope of section be- support the indictment and in this trial to enterprise might operated or cause “an be conspiracy, conclude of a we conviction managed others associated with the enter- misjoinder occurred. United States no as, prise control it for exam- who exert over 1522, 1541, Weinstein, v. 762 F.2d modified Reves, 184, ple, by bribery.” 507 U.S. at 113 Cir.1985), (11th F.2d 673 grounds, 778 on other added). (emphasis at 1173 S.Ct. 1110, denied, 475 U.S. 106 S.Ct. rt. ce (1986).4 1519, reject appellants’ narrow L.Ed.2d 917 We 89 reading attempt of Reves and their to infuse analysis the Reves into this case. In this Sufficiency the Evidence II. case, charged the indictment government’s Appellants contend 1962(d), with RICO under section to establish that evidence was insufficient and not a substantive RICO offense under they conspired participate “opera 1962(c). recently section This court decided management” of the RICO enter tion or “operation management” or the Reves argue that prise. Appellants under Reves v. 1962(d) apply test does not to section convic 170, 1163, Young, 113 Ernst & 507 U.S. S.Ct. Starrett, tions. v. United States (1993), 122 was L.Ed.2d 525 (11th 1525, Cir.1995); Napoli see also showing required produce evidence (2d States, 680, 683, Cir.), appellants agreed to exercise control or di — denied, -, 1796, U.S. management rection in the of the Circuit 131 L.Ed.2d 724 Our view of the Ap Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. light evidence most favorable to the pellants suggest that as outsiders could than indicates that more suffi requisite degree not have exerted the of con cient evidence existed to demonstrate that “operation management” trol over the or appellants “agreed” operation to affect the or Court of the Eleventh the Circuit Judicial management of the Circuit Court of the requirements Circuit to meet the of Reves. through paying Eleventh Judicial Circuit kickbacks. matter, preliminary reject As a reading limited of Reves. Under III. Constructive Amendment Indict- 1962(c) Reves, liability is not section limited ment upper management appel to insiders or Reves, 184-86, suggests. lants A constructive “amendment oc Reves, Supreme at 1173. In curs when the essential elements of the of emphasized Court that because the statute fense contained in the indictment are altered phrase participate directly possible includes the “to or to broaden the bases for conviction 1962(c) support requires significant 4. Even where the evidence does not section control over proof single conspiracy, Reves, of a we will not overturn enterprise. or within an 78, 507 U.S. at 176- proof conviction unless either adduced 113 S.Ct. at n. 4 179 n. at trial was so different from the indictment so as enterprise’s exert Outsiders control over unfairly surprise preparation defendants in the through illegal satisfy affairs means sufficient to defense, (2) many of their so defendants exist See, requirements. e.g., Reves’s Aetna Cas. Sur. likely that the trial to confuse the evidence at Autobody, Co. v. P & B 1559-60 among the defendants. (auto (1st 1994) repair shops, employ Cir. their LeQuire, (11th Cir.1991) F.2d ees, and insurance claimants who submitted (citing Caporale, United States v. company claims to insurance fraudulent caused Cir.1986), rt. 483 U.S. ce company pay large the insurance out sums of (1987)), 97 L.Ed.2d 763 money and thus exerted sufficient control over company satisfy affairs of the insurance Reves). dictates fact, expressly disagreed the Court with the suggestion District of Columbia Circuit's

1453 however, jury, rely Judge formed the on beyond is contained the indictment.” what Behety, testimony only 508 States v. Smith’s which defined the (11th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Kel Circuit Court the Eleventh Judicial Cir- (11th Cir.1990), ler, cert. 634 Similarly, cuit. the district court instructed denied, 111 U.S. S.Ct. 113 jury the the Eleventh Judicial Circuit — (1991)), cert. denied U.S. L.Ed.2d 724 enterprise was the RICO that must have 2568, 132 -, satisfy affected interstate commerce to the The indictment be amended as result 1962(d). requirements of section jury prosecu of erroneous instructions or though jury Even the heard the term Behety, 32 F.3d at 508. tor’s statements. trial, Eleventh during Judicial Circuit a constructive amendment occurs it When government’s evidence focused on the circuit principle” stemming violates “a fundamental court’s effect on interstate commerce. For specifically, Fifth Amendment: from the example, government presented testimo- only “that a defendant can be convicted for a ny from the court administrator for the Elev- charged crime in the indictment.” United County enth Judicial Circuit of Dade who Keller, States v. judges testified that the circuit court traveled Cir.1990), Moreover, out of state on business. he testi- 1628, 113L.Ed.2d 724 S.Ct. purchased fied that the circuit court and used case, appellants In this contend that a books, computers, supplies from vendors amendment of the indictment constructive outside of Florida. the court Neither admin- on the RICO count be- occurred Judge explained istrator nor Smith to the prosecutor’s cause both the summation and jury that the Circuit Court of the Eleventh jury the district court’s instructions substi- Circuit Judicial was division of the Elev- tuted the “Eleventh Judicial Circuit” for the enth Judicial Circuit. of the Eleventh Cir- “Circuit Court Judicial prosecutor’s single we view the When re- enterprise affecting cuit” as the RICO inter- mark, instructions, the district court’s Appellants argue that the state commerce. context, proffered at the evidence trial we proof relied on of the Eleventh Judicial not believe could have do convicted Ap- Circuit’s effect on interstate commerce. upon charge based not contained pellants government claim that the failed in the indictment. Circuit Court the Eleventh Judicial Circuit affected interstate commerce. Bribery IV. Convictions determining whether an in bribery Appellants that their con- contend amended, constructively dictment was victions must be reversed. assert prosecutor’s must assess the comments and charged un- that since the them “in the court’s instructions context” to see 666(a)(2), § der U.S.C. expanded

whether the indictment was either required they to show that intended literally or in effect. v. An agent (11th Cir.1988) exchange into a direct with an drews, enter (en organization receiving federal funds.6 banc), government pro- Appellants argue that the Admitted 102 L.Ed.2d showing no evidence intend- trial, duced ly, prosecutor to the referred Circuit, anyone in the Dade ed to influence or reward than Eleventh Judicial rather Moreover, ap- County Department. Finance Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Cir cuit, pellants challenge sufficiency of the evi- enterprise closing in his RICO prosecutor immediately presented at argument. The in- dence trial to establish thereof, provides part: any agency in connection with 6. The statute in relevant business, transaction, series of transactions or Whoever, (a) if the circumstance described in organization, government, agency or (b) of such subsection of this section cor- exists— $5,000 offers, involving anything of value of or ruptly gives, agrees give anything or more.... any person of value to with intent to influence 666(a)(2) (West Supp. & agent organization 18 U.S.C.A. 1995). of a or reward an or State, government, local or Indian tribal agent County in the Dade Fi- County federal influenced an Metropolitan Dade received $10,000. in excess of to checks. We grants Department nance issue the ap- that government proved that the believe trial, appropriate inquiry was: At only to influence Gel- pellants not intended prove beyond a reason did ber, they an but also intended to influence (1) appellants gave or able doubt that agent County depart- Finance the Dade thing any person give to of value to offered agent having ment Gelber authorize the (2) corrupt with the intent to influence or payments Ac- issue for their SAPD services. organization an that in a agent an reward cordingly, appellants prop- were we hold one-year period received benefits excess of bribery erly convicted of under 18 U.S.C. (3) $10,000 program under a federal con 666(a)(2). § or nection with business transaction ser organization, gov transactions of such ies of the district also contend ernment, anything agency involving of the testimony, admitting over court erred $5,000 or more. 18 U.S.C.A. value objections, establishing Metropolitan 666(a)(2) (West Supp.1995). § 1976 & The County grants federal in ex- Dade received government presented evidence at trial es $10,000. Appellants argue that cess of tablishing appellants paid that the kick district court have excluded the testi- should Judge with the intent to backs Gelber Patterson, mony of an assistant con- Willis Judge appoint them as SAPDs have Gelber County Depart- troller in the Dade Finance County agent an of the Dade and authorize ment, as a violation of Federal Rules of Department compen Finance to issue them 1002. Evidence 602 and (3) in sation checks connection with their legal rendering of services of a value exceed appellants’ agree cannot $5,000. ing We suggestion that the district court abused its reject appellants’ suggestion We testimony. admitting Patterson’s discretion had to show a direct According to Rule 602 of the Federal Rules quid pro quo relationship them and between Evidence, testify may not to a witness agent agency receiving federal matter unless evidence is introduced to es funds. We believe that the nar personal possesses tablish that the witness reading bribery would row statute case, knowledge of the matter.7 this purpose protect the statute’s “to belie personal record shows that Patterson had integrity money the vast sums distribut knowledge grants about the federal that Met theft, through programs from ed federal County ropolitan Dade received. Patterson fraud, by bribery.” and undue influence was controller testified that he the assistant Cong., S.Rep. No. 98th 2d Sess. 369-370 County Department of the Dade Finance for (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. past years, department and his seven 3510-11. It is clear from the record that the responsible receiving grant for federal mo payments knew SAPD county.8 nies on behalf of the The defense Metropolitan services came from Dade Coun opportunity had an to cross-examine Patter Moreover, ty ap and not the circuit court. personal knowledge son about his but did not pellants also knew that could not receive Accordingly, him. find that the examine Metropolitan County payments from Dade district court did not abuse its discretion in judge unless a circuit court authorized Met County admitting testimony. ropolitan pay Dade the bill or this provides: 7. Rule 602 Fed.R.Evid. 602. testify A witness to a matter unless Although specific 8. could not Patterson recall evidence is introduced sufficient to introduce finding County grants number of Dade received from personal that the witness has knowl- grants he exceed- testified edge prove person- of the matter. Evidence to year during not, $90 ed million in each that time knowledge may, al but need consist of the $10,- period substantially testimony. subject which is more than the

witness’ own This rule is statutory requirement provisions relating opinion under 18 U.S.C. of rule testimony by expert witnesses.

1455 ordinary reject appellants’ people con can Similarly, we understand what prohibited conduct is and in a manner that that under Rule 1002 of the Federal tention encourage arbitrary does not rule” and discrimina- of Evidence or “the best evidence Rules Lawson, tory enforcement.” Kolender v. precluded Pat 461 court should have the district 352, 357, 1855, 1858, U.S. 103 S.Ct. 75 testimony because the terson’s (1983). L.Ed.2d 903 composite entered exhibit 406 should have Metropolitan federal funds that detailed Moreover, this court has observed that County do not believe Dade received. We constitutionality vague statutory a “[t]he Rules of Evi that Rule 1002 of the Federal closely standard is related to whether the implicated in the dence was this ease because incorporates requirement standard of mens questions posed to Patterson did not seek Waymer, (citing rea.” 55 F.3d at 568 Co composite 406. elicit the “contents” of exhibit Franklin, 379, 675, lautti v. 439 U.S. Swann, See, e.g., Ins. v. 27 F.3d Allstate Co. (1979)). 58 L.Ed.2d 596 In United States v. (11th Cir.1994) 1539, (recognizing 1542-43 Conner, this court also mentioned that “the always that Fed.R.Evid. 1002 does not re statutory requirement that an act must be writing merely quire the introduction of a certain, purposeful may willful or not render writing facts similar to because the contains purposes, statutory all definition of the Rather, testimony). questions the were respects crime which is in uncertain. some County showing that Dade received aimed objec But it does reheve the statute of the $10,000 substantially than in federal more punishes warning tion that it without of necessarily grants, and not the exact amount fense which the accused was unaware.” county’s receipt surrounding Conner, 566, details United States v. 752 F.2d 574 grants. Cir.) (11th millions of dollars in federal See States, (quoting Screws v. United Swann, (finding 27 F.3d at 1542-43 91, 102, 1031, 1036, 325 U.S. 89 implicated (1945) not where best evidence rule was J., (Douglas, concurring)), L.Ed. 1495 underwriting manager’s an nom., an insurance Taylor cert. denied sub v. United questions familiarity States, 821, 106 swers to based on his 474 U.S. S.Ct. 88 L.Ed.2d underwriting guidelines not nec and did 59 When the Second Circuit ad essarily require him the contents of to state challenge dressed a to section 1341 of the underwriting guidelines). Margi- mail fraud statute in United v. States otta, that circuit found that 1341 was section Mail Fraud

V. unconstitutionally vague because it “con Appellants requirement invalidate their mail tains the the defendant seek to willfully specif claim that must have acted and with the fraud conviction because mail ic intent to v. Mar the term “honest services” fraud defraud.” United States (2d Cir.1982), unconstitutionally vague, giotta, 129 statute is 77 that the mail fraud statute does not extend to L.Ed.2d cover schemes whose ultimate intent is to intangible rights.

deprive sovereign state of reasoning believe that the from We void-for-vague foregoing is instructive here. In cases Since ease, had to challenge ness to section 1346 does not raise this issue, appellants “specific intent” to a First Amendment we will consider had the (West §§ applied to facts of this defraud. 18 U.S.C.A. section 1346 as Waymer, Supp.1995). The found that v. 1984 & case. United States (11th Awan, Cir.1995); specific intent to defraud had the Cir.1992). In state of Florida of its honest services. as light foregoing reasoning, we hold that sessing void-for-vagueness statute under in section 1346 challenge, unconstitu the term “honest services” find a statute unconstitutionally vague applied tionally was not vague when it fails to “define the appellants.9 to the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness jury's findings spe- challenge sufficiency regarding the evidence did not (3d Martinez, appellants’ argument considering Cir.), scope of the mail fraud stat regarding the appel 591, 112 adopt decline to protection, we

ute’s §§ 1341 and lants’ construction of U.S.C. Indeed, upon other based cases decided appellants’ interpretation of 1346. Under violations, prior clarifying to section 1341 the 1346,the mail fraud statute 1341 and sections 1346, support of section our find amendment First, appellants protect states. would not ing protect mail fraud statute does that the with federalism that it is inconsistent contend See, a state. governmental entities such as sovereign principles apply this statute 100, e.g., Coyne, v. 110- United States clear, has made it Supreme state. The Court (2d Cir.1993) (upholding 11 mail fraud convic however, putting Congress that forbid county where a was victim of mail tions post office when “such acts letters into the Paccione, fraud); it in furtherance of a scheme that are done Cir.1991) (2d (affirming mail 1183 fraud con policy, it regards contrary public whether defrauded), city of York viction where New or not.” Badders v. can forbid the scheme denied, 1220, 3029, 112 505 U.S. S.Ct. States, 391, 393, 240 United (1992); States v. 120 L.Ed.2d 900 United (1916). Therefore, 367, 368, L.Ed. 706 60 Cir.1990) (11th Wilson, 656, 660-61 argument appellants’ federalism is without (upholding mail in fraud conviction where merit. alleged dictment defendants intended to de suggest Congress’s Appellants also Service), fraud the Internal Revenue enactment of section restricts section 502 U.S. protection nongovernmental 1341’s vic- (1991). L.Ed.2d 205 We can discern no rea 1988, Congress In tims. enacted section appel son to read sections 1341 and 1346 as mail 1346 of the fraud statute state states, presum suggest lants to exclude intangible deprivation offense for the ably, governmental all entities from the mail services,” rights such as “honest thus over- protection. fraud statute’s We believe that ruling Supreme the Court’s decision congression such a result would belie clear States, McNally v. United 483 U.S. 107 al mail fraud intent to construe the statute 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 Pub.L. broadly. generally See States v. United (codified 100-690, § No. Stat. 4508 (3d Cir.1990). Martinez, 905 F.2d 709 (1988)); as amended at 18 U.S.C. see Hll,251 Cong.Rec. (daily also 134 ed. Oct. VI. Prosecutorial Misconduct 1988). Appellants assert that sections Appellants prosecutorial contend that mis- together punish 1341 and 1346 read seek to First, respects. ap- conduct occurred in two having “whoever devised or intended to de- pellants allege prosecutor impermis- that the any deprive vise scheme or artifice to ‘anoth- Gelber, sibly credibility vouched for the intangible right er’ honest services government’s Primarily, the main witness. places post ... office or authorized appellants’ challenge prosecutor’s the at- depository Appellants for mail matter....” testimony tempts to elicit from Gelber re- argue that the term “another” cannot encom- garding telling provisions truth his disagree. pass a state. We Second, plea agreement. appellants contend plain language Neither the of section 1346 prosecutor disparaging made re- history supports legislative nor its the limita- attorneys marks about the defense and other appellants urge. tion We find it instructive improper remarks. state prior to note that to section 1346’s enact- prosecutor suggested prosecutors are ment, questions regarding similar arose pursue justice sworn to while criminal de- protection. reach of section 1341’s United attorneys manipu- to the fense are beholden Martinez, States v. the Third Circuit found justice system. lation of the protected the mail fraud statute Pennsylvania depri- question from faced with a Commonwealth When property improper vouching vation of its interests. United whether occurred we ask: Also, appellants challenge specific cific intent to defraud. do not instructions on intent. reasonably Eyster, United States v. could believe F.2d “whether (11th Cir.1991). indicating personal prosecutor was credibility.” in the witness’s belief prosecution Both the and defense Sims, Cir. making improper came close to comments as 1983), cert. they exchanged during closing argu vitriol applying Appellants challenge ments. prosecutors test, prosecu we look for whether this here, following remark: “And these fellows placed prestige tor guys prosecutors, they’re these are sworn to by making explicit behind the witness assur prosecutors, justice. pursue be These de credibility, ances of the witness’s counsel, they clients, represent fense their prosecutor implicitly vouched for the wit they say come here and what want to credibility by implying that evidence ness’s help their clients.” While we do not condone formally jury presented supports not to the remarks, prosecutor’s we cannot find that Sims, testimony. the witness’s 719 F.2d grounds constitute for reversal. The prosecutor made the statement on rebuttal in response to the defense counsel’s comments appellants’ initial concern Since prosecutors that the were liars and suborn- testimony surrounding is about Gelber’s his perjury. ers of The defense counsel invited plea agreement, prosecutors we note that are prosecutor’s light concomitant attack. generally prohibited entering plea not from surrounding of the circumstances the ex agreement jury’s into evidence for the con change against and the substantial evidence Dennis, sideration. States v. United appellants, agree appel cannot that (11th 1029, Cir.1986), F.2d 1047 n. 18 cert. any prejudice. lants suffered See United denied, 1037, 1973, 481 U.S. 107 S.Ct. Cotton, 63, (5th States v. 631 F.2d Cir. (1987). Moreover, L.Ed.2d 814 our careful 1980) (where gov defense counsel referred to which this review of the circumstances under liars, agents persons ernment and en testimony compels was elicited us to find that gaged coverups, government in entitled to reasonably could not have believed assertions), denied, respond to cert. 450 U.S. personally vouching prosecutor was 1032, 1743, 101 S.Ct. 68 L.Ed.2d 227 credibility, prosecu that for Gelber’s Appellants also contend indicating beyond tor what was evidence prosecutor improper made statements presented jury supported to the Gelber’s trying prove guilt by to association. We find case, testimony. prosecutor In this prosecutor this contention meritless as the merely questioned require Gelber about the properly pre commented on the evidence fully plea agreement testify ments of the sented to the when he described the Furthermore, truthfully. ques in his appellants close association that shared with Gelber, tioning prosecutor merely prior others involved in the kickback scheme pointed prosecution if out that Gelber risked during criminal to and their activities. Unit perjured he have found himself. We similar Tisdale, v. ed States questioning proper. See States v. (11th Cir.) (stating that the evidence when (11th Sims, Cir.1983), cert. comments, supports prosecutor’s no error denied, 1304, 79 465 U.S. occurs), 484 U.S. (1984). Consequently, we find 194, 98 L.Ed.2d 145 prosecutorial that no misconduct occurred respect impermissible vouching. with Testimony VII. Exclusion of Witness similar result obtains our con contend reversible

A prosecutor’s alleged pre sideration of the dis error occurred when the district court paraging improper introducing cluded them from a witness to remarks other self-interest, bias, may prosecutorial expose statements. We find Gelber’s or motive (1) record, prosecutor testify falsely. It is clear from the misconduct where makes (2) however, sought impeach improper prejudicially af remarks credibility through introducing rights fect the substantial of the defendant. Gelber’s testi- To convict a defendant drug regarding mony dealer of a convicted (1) RICO, defendant must soliciting violation of bad act of alleged prior Gelber’s enterprise marijuana. have been associated help smuggle commerce, and engaged in interstate discre did not abuse its court The district participated in the conducted or must have testimony. excluding proposed this tion (4) through enterprise’s affairs conduct of the bad acts prior Specific instances racketeering. 18 U.S.C. pattern See through extrinsic evidence be admitted 1962(c); Bright, v. see also United States credibility. Fed.R.Evid. attack a witness’s Cir.1980).1 To Darwin, 608(b); v. also United see overarching conspir- the existence of a (11th Cir.1985), F.2d multiple independent con- acy, rather than 88 L.Ed.2d 930 government must show that the spiracies, the that the dis we find Consequently, objective. agreed to an overall conspirators its not abuse discretion trict court did Sutherland, testimony. excluding this (5th Cir.1981) (as other con- 1192-93 must spiracy, under RICO CONCLUSION “agreement on an prove the existence of an reasons, ap- we affirm foregoing For the objective”); see also United States overall pellants’ convictions and sentences. (11th Cir.1988). Valera, AFFIRMED. RICO, not government the need show Under spe- conspirators agreed to commit the BARKETT, specially Judge, Circuit accomplish goals; it or common cific crimes concurring: enough agreed partici- each to is majority’s opinion fully with the I concur conspiracy to commit the substan- pate a for mail affirming the convictions directly affecting, of tive RICO offense bribery conspiracy Castro’s fraud and and indirectly, enterprise the affairs RICO, concur in affirm- under and conviction racketeering. through pattern a of Suther- Boehme’s, Lechtner’s, Luongo’s con- ing and warns, land, 656 F.2d at 1192. Sutherland but for different reasons. spiracy convictions however, enough that it is not that the defen- Boehme’s, Lechtner’s, and respect With to simply participating in the con- dants were convictions, I not Luongo’s conspiracy do enterprise, or had knowl- duct of the same proffered ev- government think sufficient the activity; gravamen edge of other criminal agree- prove to the existence of idence any conspiracy, conspir- like other of a RICO necessary to overarch- ment only acy, not knows is the defendant charged in the indictment. ing conspiracy conspiracy, agrees par- also to about the but Instead, only proved government the ex- objec- accomplish an overall ticipate in it to independent conspiracies multiple istence of Valera, 1192-93; Id. at see also tive.2 which involved one of the defendants. each of at F.2d 929. However, the variance between because agreed with To show that a defendant allegations in the indictment and contained participate in the affairs of the others to proof trial did not affect adduced racketeering, enterprise through pattern a of rights, I would affirm defendants’ substantial prove either an conspiracy must on the RICO their convictions (2) in the absence of explicit agreement, or charge. Prichard, by pro- establishing penal prohibitions, City new and 1. In Bonner v. (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), viding this circuit and new remedies to enhanced sanctions binding adopted precedent all decisions of the unlawful activities of those en- deal with the prior to Octo- Circuit handed down former Fifth ber gaged organized James F. Holder- crime." 1981. man, Conspiracy Reconciling and RICO's Enterprise Concepts “Group” with Traditional noting Congress's express pur- It's worth Doctrine, Conspiracy 52 U.Cin.L.Rev. 386- enacting Organized pose Crime Control 91-452, (1983) (quoting Pub.L. No. 84 Stat. part, was "to Act of of which RICO is added). (1970)) (emphasis organized crime ... seek the eradication evidence, that the nature of the con- outside of the individual kickback deals —to direct nec- spiracy that the defendant must conduct the affairs of the Circuit Court is such essarily through pattern racketeering. have known that others also were At trial conspiring participate to in the same enter- government proffered sufficient evidence racketeering through pattern activ- prise charged attorneys show that each of the Valera, 929; Sutherland, ity. F.2d at participant was a in a involving (2), agreement an his/herself, Gelber, 656 F.2d at 1194. Under Judge Davis, Judge single conspiracy can participate be However, Margaret Ferguson. the evidence participation inferred of others is because insufficient Luongo, show that necessary for the defendant to benefit from Boehme, explicitly agreed or Lechtner Thus, activity. example, his own criminal participate in a conspiracy in which others proved circumstantially agreement can be corruptly utilizing also were the Circuit is a member of an enter- when the defendant through pattern racketeering.3 Court prise specifically illegal purposes formed for respect Luongo, With did (“association see, fact”), e.g., United States present any suggest evidence to he was (11th Cir.1992); Church, 955 F.2d 688 even aware that there was crimi- other Elliott, 571 F.2d 880 activity nal afoot in the Circuit Court. Cir.1978), or is a link in a chain of criminal payment Lechtner was advised that see, Valera, activity, e.g., 845 F.2d at appointments kickbacks on court was “some- conspir- nature of those because the inherent thing being Similarly, that’s done.” Boehme necessarily participants. acies involve other placed was informed that he would be on the charged “preferred indictment in this case appointments. The list” for court Boehme, Lechtner, Luongo, attorneys alone, possibly These statements while estab- practicing in and associated with the Elev- lishing knowledge activity of other criminal Circuit, agreeing partic- enth Judicial Court, within the Circuit are insufficient to ipate in of the of the the affairs Circuit Court beyond establish a reasonable doubt Circuit, through pattern Eleventh a Judicial explicitly agreed Boehme and Lechtner wit, Extortion, Conspiracy racketeering, of accomplish anything receipt more than the of Attempt to Commit Extortion and to Commit appointments monetary court for their own Extortion, Compensation Bribery, Unlawful gain.4 Nothing suggests they were Behavior, Conspiracy or Reward for Official scope aware of the contours or of the con- Fraud, Murder, Mail and Laun- to Commit indictment, spiracy charged in the or that Instruments, dering Monetary with the they in would be interested or benefit from object utilizing corruptly the Circuit Court the similar activities others. To the con- gain. personal for financial Each was only trary, profiting interested in were charged committing predi- at least two individual, clearly-defined wrong- from their conspiracy, in cate acts furtherance acts, ful and neither benefitted from was namely, paying on numerous occasions kick- upon larger conspiracy. Al- dependent the exchange appoint- in judges backs to though conspirators need not know their fel- Special ments as Assistant Public Defenders. conspirators of all the de- low or be aware conspiracy, Pepe, a tails of nature of the kickback activi- Because the (11th Cir.1984), equal- it is necessarily anyone ties did not involve other ly who embarks on a criminal true “one attorney judge to which the than the and a circumscribed outline is not venture with paid, kickbacks were was responsible co-conspirator of his for acts required to that each of the defen- beyond goals explicitly agreed participate in a which are as the defendant dants larger conspiracy people Bright, them.” 630 F.2d at 834 involved understands —one actually participation jury’s sufficiency 3. We review the verdict for 4. Castro solicited novo, Judge attorneys de but view the evidence in new Gelber's kickback evidence scheme, light could to the and thus a reasonable trier-of-fact most favorable agreed participate determine whether a factfinder could find that Castro con- reasonable involving participants guilt beyond spiracy to cor- find doubt. See United numerous reasonable (11th Cir.1989). Kelly, ruptly 888 F.2d 732 utilize the Circuit Court. overwhelming evidence of Therefore, introduced was a ment I that there believe n. 52. defendant, and whether that guilt as to each single between variance admissible had multiple would have been and the evidence in the indictment charged Sutherland, Id. separate trials been held. trial. proved at See conspiracies (finding multiple conspira- F.2d at 1194 case, were four defendants In this there conspiracy where rather than cies existence of government proved and the co-conspirators were involved indicted conspiracies. This case was not four similar public the same to bribe similar schemes likely jury complex it as to render so agreement official, was no where there but guilt among the transferred defendants. them); F.2d at 834 Bright, 630 among 82-83, 55 Compare Berger, 295 at U.S. (same). (no rights affected where at 631 substantial Boehme, are enti- and Lechtner Luongo, were four defendants and two distinct there trial, however, only they if can tled to new conspiracies) with Kotteakos v. United their sub- variance affected show that States, 750, 766-69, Sutherland, at rights. stantial (1946) (substantial 1249-50, 90 L.Ed. States, Berger v. United n. thirty-two rights affected where there were (1935), 79 L.Ed. 1314 eight conspiracies). defendants and distinct be- held that variance Supreme Court Second, as to each defendant’s role evidence charged in an in- single conspiracy tween a enough kickback schemes was distinct conspiracies proved at multiple dictment and jury unlikely to use evidence so that the was only if it “affects trial fatal to a conviction is against guilt of one defendant’s another de- rights” of the accused. Id. the substantial Although the similarities between fendant. general, a defen- at 630-31. of the defendant’s activities have each rights are not affected substantial dant’s more made an assertion of innocence difficult guilty are not merely people other because believe, I find that the evi- for the the defendant conspiracy in which the same underlying crimes was suffi- dence as to the Instead, primary dangers involved. ciently separate for the distinct between the indict- resulting from a variance guilt independent- each defendant’s consider proof at trial are the accused ment and ly. Similarly, to each the evidence as defen- adequate de- present able to will not be kickback dant’s involvement activities notification as to inadequate because of fense guilty than to find them was more sufficient guilt will transfer charges, conspiracies. of the individual trial, joint among defendants in sum, although I that a variance believe prosecuted for the same the accused be existed between later. Id. offense multiple charged in the indictment and the Sutherland, Fifth focused on Circuit trial, conspiracies proved a vari- factors to determine whether three affected, rights were not and thus substantial affected an accused’s substantial ance has Therefore, required. I would reversal is First, should look to the rights. the court all affirm their convictions on counts. joint involved number of defendants actually conspiracies trial and the number of greater at 1196. The

proved at trial. Id. conspirators,

number of defendants case, complex creating greater

more and transference of

risk of confusion to another. Sec-

guilt from one defendant

ond, court should examine whether evi- guilt, which has no of a co-defendant’s

dence guilt, has been

bearing on the defendant’s

kept separate and distinct from evidence ma- Third, a guilt. Id.

terial to the defendant’s govern- whether the

court should examine

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Castro

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Jul 12, 1996

Citation: 89 F.3d 1443

Docket Number: 94-4338

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.