Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41608/USCOURTS-ca5-02-41608-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Tim C. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41608

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TIM C. WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-02-CR-105-1 

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tim C. Williams appeals from his judgment of conviction and

sentence and final order of criminal forfeiture following his

guilty plea to conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of

cocaine. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (h); 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. We affirm.

 Williams argues that Peña violated his duty of loyalty to

him by testifying against him before the grand jury and at his

 Case: 02-41608 Document: 0051116194 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2004
No. 02-41608

-2-

sentencing hearing; Williams also contends that the Government

improperly exploited Peña’s “conflict” by calling Peña as a

witness. Williams has not demonstrated that his former counsel,

Albert Peña, had an actual conflict of interest arising from

Peña’s representation of multiple clients with conflicting

interests. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349-50 (1980). 

Further, because Peña’s testimony did not involve communications

protected by the attorney-client privilege, Williams’s arguments

lack merit. See United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 618 (5th

Cir. 2002) (“Under the crime-fraud exception to the

attorney-client privilege, the privilege can be overcome where

communication or work product is intended to further continuing

or future criminal or fraudulent activity.”) (internal quotations

and citation omitted), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1192 (2003). 

Williams’s written plea agreement, in which he agreed, inter

alia, to the forfeiture of one million dollars, supports the

district court’s determination as to the amount of the monetary

forfeiture. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2 (b)(1). To the extent that

Williams suggests, in a one-sentence footnote in his original

appellate brief, that the Government breached the plea agreement,

thereby relieving him of his own obligations in the agreement,

Williams has not adequately briefed the issue in his initial

brief on appeal and it is abandoned. See Cinel v. Connick, 15

F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d

247, 255-56 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc) (observing that this court

 Case: 02-41608 Document: 0051116194 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2004
No. 02-41608

-3-

is not required to search the record to find a legal and factual

basis for an issue that is inadequately briefed). 

Williams’s “Unopposed Motion to Supplement the Record with

Government’s Motion and District Court’s Order Unsealing

Sentencing Transcripts” is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY because the

Government’s motion and district court’s order are now part of

the record on appeal. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED AS

UNNECESSARY.

 Case: 02-41608 Document: 0051116194 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2004