FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 1, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 21 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 7- cr-6 02 59 -J AG-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JEAN RIC HARD G. PAUL, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 1, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Je anRic ha rdG. Paul ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si on of 5 ki lo gr am s orm or e o f co cai ne with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te an d p os se ss io n o f 50 gra m s o r m or e o fco cai ne ba se with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . Pau l

arg ue s t ha t the di stric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y in st ru ct in g t he jury
co nc ern in g h is pre -tr ia l fl ig htbe cau se th e Gov ern m en t p res en te d i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce t o warran t the in st ru ct io n. Fu rth er, Pau l ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y

su m m ari ly deny in g P au l’s u nt im el y m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l
as he be li ev es th e in cl us io n o f th e fl ig htin st ru ct io n n eces si ta te d ane w, un ta in te d pr oc eed in g. Aft er a re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm Pau l’s co nv ic ti on s. I.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s jury in stru ct io ns foranab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 54 1 F .3d10 87 , 10 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m). An
erro ne ou s ju ry

in st ru ct io n c on st itut es gro un ds forrev ers al on ly if a rea so nabl e li ke li ho odex is ts th atth e err or affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Id. ; se e Fed . R. Evi d. 1 03 (a).

“ Evi de nc e o f fl ig htis adm is si bl e to de m on st rat e co ns ci ou sn es s o f gu il t an d th ereb y gu il t.” W

il li ams , 54 1 F .3dat 1 08 9 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Ana lytic al ly, fl ig h t i s an adm is si on by co nduc t. Its pr ob at iv e va lu e as ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce of gu il t de pe nd s up on th e de gr ee of co nf id en ce wit h whi ch fo ur in fere nc es can be dr awn : (1 ) fro m th e de fen da nt ’s be ha vi or to fli g h t ; ( 2 ) fro m fli gh t to co ns ci ou sn es s of gu il t; (3 ) fro m co ns ci ou sn es s of gu il t to co ns ci ou sn es s of gu il t co nc ern i n g th e cri m e 2ch arg ed ; an d (4 ) fro m co ns ci ou sn es s of gu il t co nc e rn i n g th e cri m e

ch arg edto actua l g ui ltof t he cri m e ch arg ed
. Uni te d Sta tes v. Mye rs , 55 0 F .2d10 36 , 10 49 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7)
. Use o f th e fl ig ht 1 in st ru ct io n i s ap pr op ria te if t he go ve rn m en t “ m ak e[s ] cert ai n t ha t ea ch li nkin th e ch ai n o f in fere nc es ” is “ stur di ly sup po rte d.” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Wright , 39 2 F .3d 12 69 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). If su ffi ci en t ev id en ce i s p res en te d s o t ha t the jury
co ul d re as on ab ly con cl ud e th atth e d efen da ntfle d t o a vo idth e ch arg edcri m e, th e di st ric t co urt d oe s n otab us e it s d is cret io n b y gi vi ng a fl ig htin st ru ct io n. W il li ams , 54 1 F .3dat 1 08 9. The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y gi vi ng th e fl ig htin st ru ct io n. InOcto be r 20 07 , Pau l was arre st edforth e co nduc t atis su e, arra ig ne d, an d rel eas edpe nd in g t ria l. The Gov ern m en t p res en te d u nc on te st edtes ti m on y th at , pr io r to tri al , Pau l fl edth e juri sd ic ti on to th e Bah am as an d was arre st edth ere i n Ju ne 20 08 . Pau l’s trav el an d fa il ur e to ap pe ar v io la te d t he term s o f hi s b on d. In li gh t o f th e ch arg es pe nd in g a ga in sthi m an d the ti m in g o f hi s d ep artur e, th e di st ric t co urt’s i nc lu si onof afli gh t i ns tru ct io n was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. II. Pursuant to Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en 1 banc) , all former

Fifth Circuit ca ses hande d down bef ore O ctober

1, 1981 serve as binding prec edent.
3Pau l n ex t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y su m m ari ly de nyin g P au l’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, wh ic h h e fi le d o n t he ev e o f se nt en ci ng an d
m or e th an11 m on th s af

te r th e jury’ s v erd ic t. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l u nd er the ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard
. Uni te d Sta tes v. S wea t , 55 5 F .3d13 64 , 13 67 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m). Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 3 p ro vi de s t ha t a

“ co urt m ay

va cat e an y

jud gm en t an d g ran t a n ew tr ia l i f th e in te res t o f jus ti ce s o requi res .” “ Tha t i s a b ro adst an da rd . It i s n otli m it edto cas es wher e th e d is tri ct co urt co nc lu de s t ha t i ts pri orrul in g, upo n wh ic h i t b as es th e n ew tr ia l, was leg al ly
erro ne ou s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Vi ca ri a , 12 F.3d19 5, 1 98 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). At the ti m e o f Pau l’s co nv ic ti on , m ot io ns for a ne w tri al were re qu ire d t o b e fil edwithi n 7 da y s af

te r th e v erd ic t o r fi nd in g o f gu il ty. Fed . R. Cri m . P. 33 (b )(2 ) (2 00 5) (am en de d 2 00 9) . The d is tri ctco urt i n t hi s ca se gra nt edPau l an ex te ns io n, al lo win g h im

to fil e su ch a m ot io n wi th in 90 da y s, i .e., by Ju ne 20 09 . Pau l fi le d hi s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l i n M arch 20 10 . Evenif o th erwi se un ti m el y , th e d is tri ct co urt m ay , on a pa rty’ s m ot io n, ex te ndth e ti m e to fil e a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l i f th e d efen da nt“ fai le d t o a ctbe cau se of e xc us ab le ne gl ect .” Se e Fed . R. Cri m . P. 45 (b )(1 )(B)
.

4Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t s pe ci fy it s re as on s fo r de nyin g P au l’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Eve n a ss um in g, ar gu en do , th atex cu sabl e n eg le ctledto th e ex tra or di na ril y

lat e fi li ng , th e m ot io n l ack edm eri t b ecau se Pau l fa il edto sh ow t ha t th e in te res t o f jus ti ce re qu ire d ane w tri al . As de sc rib edab ov e, th e Gov ern m en t pr es en te d s uf

fic ie nt , un co nt es te d e vi de nc e to warran t the fli gh t i ns tru ct io n. Bec au se Pau l fa il edto sh ow t ha t the in te res t o f jus ti ce re qu ire d ane w tri al , th e di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y su m m ari ly den y in g P au l’s m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

5