### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Januar y 31, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11838 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo
. 0 4
- 8 0 1 3 8
- C R
- DT KH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O S E M A R Y S C H I E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f ort he S out he r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 31, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e: R os e m a r y S c hi era ppe a l s he rc onvi c t i ons , e nt e r e d a f t e ra be nc h tr i a l , f

or kn ow i ng po ss es si on of a c on ce al ed dang er ou s w eapo n (an i ce pi ck) on an ai rpl ane, in v io l at i on of 49 U
. S
. C
. § 4 65 05 (b)( 1) (C ou nt1), and k no w i ng l y e nt er i ng anSchier also argues the district cour t erre d by failingto suppress ce rtain statements she 1 ma dewh e n s hewa s d e ta ine d at th e Wes t Pa lm B e a c h ai rpo rt . Not ably, Sc hier did n ot m ov e to su pp re ss t his e vid e nc e be fo re , d

uring , o r a ft e r t

ri a l, n or di d sheso muc h a s sug g e st, prior to t his appeal, that h er s t atements were involuntar y or in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). At this late stag e, she now asser ts that the district c ourt, essentially , should have a cted sua sponte to suppress the statements beca use the g overnme nt did not present af firmative e videncethat s h e w as re adh er

M i ran d a r i ght s . W e are unp er s u ad ed
. Inh i s fa ctu al fi n d i n gs , th e d i s tri ctj u d ge found that Deputy

Robert Tenna

nt, of the Palm Be ach County She ri ff’s Offic e, re ad Schier her Miranda rights when she wa s taken into custody and that she understood and waived her rights, and that h er s t at ements were f reeand voluntary . Ba sed on our review of the re cord, thedistrict court did not plainly

err by makingthese finding s. Cf. United States v. Glen-Archila, 677 F.2d 809, 814 n.14 (11th Cir. 1982) (re viewingunprese rved c laim of Miranda violation for plain er

ror)
. We likewise find no merit in Schier’ s argument, ag ain raised for the first time on a ppeal, that the district court erre d by failing to find a viol ation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). A s s h e d o e s i nh e r

argum e ntb a s e d

o nM i r an d a , S c h i e r a s s e rt s th atth e d i s tri c tc o urt , e s s e nt i a l l y, should have a cted in a sua sponte fa s h i o n t o fi nd a violation of B rady, without so much as an objection from Schier , or even a reque st f or the materials to which she now claims she wa s entitled. In order to establish a Brady violation, a defenda nt must prove: (1) that the g overnme nt possessed evidenc e fa

vorableto the defense, (2) that the def endant did not possess the evide nce and could not obtain it with any

rea sonable dilig ence , (3) that the prosecution suppre ssed the evide nce, a nd (4) that a re asonableprobability

exis ts that the outcome of the procee ding wo u l d h av e been dif ferent had the evidenc e been disclosed to the def ense. Moon v. He ad, 285 F .3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2002). Schier’s B rady

argument focuse s on cer

tain law enforceme nt note s or repor ts. As to Special Ag ent Moffatt, we ca

n find no plain error base d on Brady beca use there is no evidenc e in the re cord that Moffatt produced a

ny notes or reports or that Sch i er requeste d any such notes or reports bef ore, duri ng , o r a ft e r t

ri a l. A s to Spe c ia l A g e nt G ard ne r, Sc hier’ s trial couns el nev e r u nambi guo us ly reque sted Gardner’ s notes. During Gardner’ s cross examination, he stated that he took notes during his interview with Schier but ha d not obtained a signe d statement. Schier’s counsel reque sted to see the notes, but Gardner indicated that he did not havethe no t es i n co urt to which def ense c ounsel 2 a i r c r a f tw i th a c onc e a l e d w e a pon c ont r a r y t o s e c ur i ty r e qui r e m e nt s , i n vi ol a t i on of 49 U
. S. C. § 4 6 3 1 4 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( Co u n t2 )
. O n a p p e a l , Sc h i e ra r g u e s th a t : ( 1 ) t he di s t r i c tc our tvi ol a t e d t he S p eed y T ri al A c t , 18 U
. S
. C
. §§ 3152- 56, 3161- 74, by
c om m e nc i ng he rt r i a l w i thi n 30 da y s of the su p ers e di ng i ndi c t m e nt ; ( 2) t he evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rther c on vi ct i on s; and (3 ) th e g ov er nm entfa i l ed t o m ee ti t s di sc l osure oblig atio n s u n der the Je ncks A ct , 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3 50 0. A ft er 1responde d “[a]ll right” bef ore c ontinuing his cross e x amination. In any event, e ven if c ounsel’s question about the notes could beconstrued as a Br ady re qu est , which wedo not find, our own re view o f t

here c ord re ve a ls n o in dic atio n that the g ov e rnme nt ac tiv e ly su pp re sse d the semate ri a ls or , f or that matte r, tha

t th e y weree xcu lpator

y or e ven us eful for imp e a c hment p ur po se s. Quite simply , we c an find no plain e rror based on B rady . Cf. United States v. Ben d er, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (re viewingunprese rved B rady claim for plain error). 3 t h o r o u g h r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d a n d c a r e f u l c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e p a r tie s ’ b r ie f s , w e
a f f i r m. I. W e r e vi e w a c l a i m unde rthe S pe e dy T r i a l A c tde novo. U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i am s, 31 4 F
. 3d 55 2, 55 6 (11 t h C ir. 20 02 ). W e norm al l y r evi ew the suff i ci ency of t he e vi d en ce de novo, vi e w i ng t he e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the go v er n m en t a nd draw i ng al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s i n favor of t he verdi ct . U ni t ed St a t e s v . B y r d , 4 0 3 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , - - - U. S
. - - - - , 1 2 6 S. C t . 243 ( 2 0 0 5 ). H o w ev er , be c a us e S c hi e rm ove d f ora j udgm e ntof

a c qui t t a l a tt he
c l os e of t he gove r nm e nt ’ s cas e butf a i l e d t o r e ne w he rm ot i on a tt he c l os e of a l l of t he e vi de nc e , w e w i l l a f f i r m he rc on vi c t i on , a ga i ns the rc ha l l e ng e t o the s uf f i ci ency of t he evi dence, “u n less t here i s a m ani fe stm i sc ar ri age of j ust i ce -- [i n o t her
w o r d s ,] if

th e e v id e n c e o n a k e y e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e is s o te n u o u s th a t a
c onvi c t i on w oul d be sh o ck i n g . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B i c hs e l , 156 F
. 3d 1148, 1150 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d )
.In B onne r v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 2 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all Fifth Circuit decisions rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 4 W e re v iew a di stri ctcourt ’ s J encks A ctfi nd i ng s f or cl ea r e rr or. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D el gado , 56 F
. 3d 13 57 , 13 63 (11t h C i r. 19 95 ). W e r evi ew a di stri ct
c our t ’ s e nf

or c e m e ntof

J e nc ks di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s fora bus e of di s c r e t i on. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. V al er a, 84 5 F .2 d 9 2 3 , 9 27 (11t h C i r. 19 88 ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t a t e s v. L e pi s c opo, 429 F
. 2d 258, 259- 60 ( 5th C i r . 1970) ( f i ndi ng no a bus e of di s c r e t i on i n di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e qui r e m e nt t h a tde f e nda ntr e que s t , r e c e i ve , a nd
exam i ne Je ncks m at er i al s i n t he pres en ce o f th e j ury)
. H ow ever , beca use S chi er 2 d id n o t o b

j ect u n d er th e Jen ck s A ct i n th e d i stri ct co u rt , w e rev i ew th at i ssu e o n ly for pl ai n err or. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. A nd er son, 47 1 F
. 2d 20 1, 20 3-04 (5t h C i r. 1973)
. T o de m ons tr a t e pl ai n erro r , the de f e nda ntm us ts how the r e i s “ ( 1) e r r or , ( 2) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c t s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t,
a n a ppe l l a t e c our tm a y the n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e r r or , but onl y i f ( 4) the e r r ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f

a i r ne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v . M on roe, 35 3 F
. 3d 13 46 , 13 49 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ) ( i nt er nal qu ot at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T h e p art i e s a r e fam i l i ar w i th t h e rel ev an tfact s an d w e su m m ari ze o n l y t h o se
ne c e s s a r y t o our a na l y s i s he r e . O n N ove m be r 18, 2004, by a seco n d su p er s e di ng5

in d i ctm ent , S chi erw as char ged w i th o ne coun tof kn ow i ng l y havi ng a c on ce al ed d a n g e r o u s w e a p o n ( a n ic e p ic k ) in h e rp o s s e s s io n o n a n a ir c r a f t i n a ir t r a ns po r t a t i o n , w h i c h w e a p o n w a s a c c e s s i b l e t o Sc h i e r d u r i n g f l i g h t , i n v i o l a t i o n of 49 U
. S
. C
. § 4 65 05 (b)( 1) (C ou nt1), and o ne coun tof kn ow i ng l y e nt er i ng an
a ir c r a f t w i th a c o n c e a le d w e a p o n in h e rp o s s e s s io n , c o n tr a r y to s e c u r ity
re qu i re m ent s, i n v i ol at i on of 49 U
. S
. C
. § 4 63 14 (a ), (b)( 1) (C ou nt2). S chi erpl ed
no tgu i l t y, w aiv ed h er ri gh tt o a j ury tri al , and p roce eded t o t ri al before the di stri ct
c o u r t. T he i n st an t c ha r ge s a r os e outof S c hi e r ’ s pos s e s s i on of a n i c e pi c k w he n s he b o a r d ed a U S A i rw ays fl i g h tfro m P h i l ad el p h i a t o W estP al m B each
. A tt ri a l, dur i ng i ni t i a l que s t i oni ng, S ch i e rt e s t i f i e d t ha ts he s e l l s c ol l e c t i bl e s a nd a nt i que s on th e in te r n e t. P r io rto tr ia l, th e p a r tie s s tip u la te d to th e f o llo w in g f

a c ts : ( 1 ) o n A p r il 14, 2004, S c hi e rc a r r i e d a n i c e pi c k i n he r ha ndba g i nt o a s e c ur e a r e a i n t he P h ila d e lp h ia a irp o r t; ( 2 ) S c h ie rk n o w in g ly a n d w illf u l l y b o a r d e d a n a ir c r a f t in
o p e r a t i o n i n a i rtr a n s p o r t a t i o n ; a n d ( 3 ) a n i c e p i c k i s a n i n h e r e n t l y da nge r ous
w e a p o n . D u ri n g i t s case-i n -ch i ef, t h e g o v ern m en tp resen te d th e fo l l o w i n g t est i m o n y. H in d o w a h K o m b e - K a

ju e , a S u p e r v is o r y S c r e e n e ra t th e P h ila d e lp h ia a irp o r t, t es t i fi ed t hat , on A pri l 14 , 20 04 , the concou rs es atthe P h il adel ph i a a i rporthad6

s i gns una m bi guous l y pos t e d t ha ti ns truc t e d tha t“ s ha rp obj e c t s ” w e r e pr ohi bi t e d on th e a irp la n e . T w o fel l ow pass engers on S chi er ’ s f l i gh t , bo th o f w ho m w er e s i t t i ng near S chi eron t he pl ane, t es t i fi ed for the go vernm ent . E vel yn A n n W i t t er s, w ho w as
se at ed ac ross the ai sl e f rom S chi er , ob se rved t hatS chi er w as u p setbeca use s he had t o s i t n e x tt o a y o u n g mo th e ro n th e p l a n e a n d b e c a me h o s t i l e t o w a r d s a f l i ght att endant
. W i tt er s s ub se qu entl y no t i ce d S chi erpu l l i ng her s l ee ve ov erw hat W i t t er s tho ug htw as a kni t t i ng needl e. B as ed on thi s obser vat i on , W i tt er s w rot e a not e t o t he f

l i ghta t t e nda nts a y i ng tha t“ [ t ] he a gi t at ed l a dy i n 20- D ha s a s ha rp ? t ool s l i d up he rr i ghts l eev e. ” A s t he f l i ghta t t e nda nt s w e r e di s c us s i ng the
s i tua t i on, W i t t e r s s aw S ch i er m ove the obj e c tf r om he rs l e e ve a nd pl a c e i ti n t he t op of a ha ndba g t h at w as o n h e rl a p. W i t t e r s a l s o r e por t e d thi s c onduc tt o t he f lig h t a tte n d a n t. R ob er t M c M e na mi n w a s s i t t i ng ne xt t o Sc hi e r a nd , l i ke W i t t e r s , no t i c ed t hat S c hi e rbe c a m e ups e ta bouthe rs e a tbe c a u se s he w a nt e d t o s i tne xtt o he rhus ba nd. M c M e na m i n i ni t i a l l y not i c ed t ha tS c hi e rw a s c onc e a l i ng a n obj e c ti n he rs l e e ve and sub se qu ent l y r epor ted to a fl i gh tatt endantthatS chi erhad an i ce pi ck and h ad pl ac ed i ti n h erpu rs e.7

M ar gare tP anchel l i , t he head flig htatt endanton S chi er ’ s f l i gh t , t es t i fi ed t hat S chi erfi rs tcom pl ai ned abo utsi t t i ng nextt o a m ot her. P anchel l i s aid thatanot her f lig h t a tte n d a n t in f

o r m e d h e ra b o u t W itte r s ’s n o te a t w h ic h p o in t P a n c h e lli
a p p r o a c h e d S c h ie r . P a n c h e lli w a s a b le to s e e th e i c e p i c k i n p la in s ig h t, a s it w a s in t he t o p o f S c hi e r ’ s pur s e . P a nc he l l i the n r e a c he d f ora nd t ook t he i c e pi c k outof S chi er ’ s p u rs e, atw hi ch po i ntS chi ersa i d t hatshe w as go i ng t o cal l the po l i ce beca use P anchel l i coul d n ott ou ch her property. P as se ng erM cM enam i n t es t i fi ed th at S ch i er act ed as i f sh e w as su rp ri sed w h en P an ch el l i fo u n d th e i cep i ck an d a s if
s h e h a d n o id e a h o w it g o t in h e rp u r s e . P a nc he l l i t ol d the c a p t ai n a boutthe i c e pi c k; the c a pt a i n a s ke d w he the rhe
n e e d e d to d iv e r t th e p la n e . P a n c h e lli s a i d n o , a n d th e p ilo t th e n in s tru c te d h e rto p u t th e ice p ick an d n o te in th e o v en o n th e p la n e . P an ch elli sp o k e w ith S ch ier’s hus ba nd a nd m ove d ot he rpe opl e s o t ha tthe t w o co ul d s i tt oge the r . A f t e rthe pl a ne l anded i n W es t P al m B ea ch, P ac hel l i gave t he no t e a nd i ce pi ck t o a po l i ce offi ce r
w h o w a s w a itin g f

o rth e p la n e . D a r y l H a m ilto n B r o w n e ll, a n e m p lo y e e o f th e T r a n s p o r ta tio n S e c u r ity A dm i ni str a t i on ( “ TS A ” ) i n W e s tPa l m B e a c h, w a s pr e s e ntw he n Sc hi e rw as
r e m ove d f

r om t he pl an e b y W est P a l m B e a c h l a w e nf or c e m e nta nd r e m a i ne d f or
a b o u t a h a lf

h o u ro f S c h ie r ’s in te r v ie w . D u r in g c r o s s e x a m in a tio n , B r o w n e ll8

in d icated th at h e h ad filed a w ritt en ag en cy re p o rt o n th e in cid e n t. W h en S ch ier’s
coun se l as ked t o see the re po rt , t he prosecut or st at ed t hatshe a lr ea dy had p rovi ded i tt o cou nsel , pu rs uantt o t he Je ncks A ct . S chi er ’ s cou nsel re spon ded “ Judg e, Je ncks has j ustbeen prov i ded t o m e. ” T he di stri ctcourtth en prov i ded cou nsel
w i t h s om e t i m e t o r e vi e w the r e por t , a f t e rw hi c h c ouns e l c ont i nue d hi s cro sse x a m in a tio n o f

B r o w n e ll. T he go v er n m en tal so pres ent ed t es t i m on y f rom F B I S peci al A gentT heod ore G ar dn er , w ho i nt er vi ew ed S chi eri n W es tP al m B ea ch af t erthe l ocal S he riff ’s O f f i c e ha d co m p l et ed i t s i nt e r vi e w of he r . G a r dne rt e s t i f

i e d tha tS c hi e rs t a t e d t he fo l l ow i ng du r i ng he ri nt e r vi e w : ( 1) s he r e me mbe r e d s e e i ng the i c e pi c k o n her ki t chen t abl e the eveni ng before the fl i gh t, an d i tm usthave fal l en i nt o h erpu rs e; (2) herpu rs e w as se ar ched th e nextday a tthe ai rport , and a pai r of nai l cl i pp er s
w a s r e mo v e d ; ( 3 ) s h e w a s h a v i n g b r e a k f a s t w i th h e r h u s b a n d a t a r e s t a u r a nt i n t he ai rp o r t a n d d is c o v ered t h e i cep i ck ; (4 ) sh e d eci d ed t o l eav e i ti n h er p u rse b ecau se i tw a s a c ol l e c t or ’ s i t e m , a nd s he c ol l e c t s a nt i que s ; ( 5) s he ha d di s c us s i o ns w i t h t he f l i ghta t t e nda nt s be c a us e s he w a nt e d t o be s e a t e d ne a rhe rhus ba nd; ( 6) s he got
nervou s, af

t erthe pl ane depart ed, be ca u se sh e h ad t he i ce pi ck i n h erbag and t ri ed t o puti tup he rs l e e ve ; ( 7) s he s ubs e que nt l y t ook the i c e pi c k outof he rs l e e ve a nd9

pu ti tback i n h erpu rs e bef ore the fl i gh tatt enda n t sei ze d i t ; and (8) she s uffe re d f r o m p o s t- tr a u m a tic s tr e s s d is o r d e r . A tt he cl ose of the go vernm ent ’ s e vi dence, S chi er ’ s c ou nsel m ov ed for a j ud gm entof ac qu i t t al , ar gu i ng t hatthe go vernm enthad n otsho w n th atS chi er i nt e nt i ona l l y c a r r i e d t he i c e pi c k ont o the pl a ne . T he c our tde ni e d the m ot i on,
c r e di t i n g Sp e c i a l A g e n tG a r n e r ’ s t e s t i mo n y th a tSc h i e rs a i d s h e d i s c o v e r e d t he i ce pi ck du ri ng brea kfas t , pri or t o b oardi ng t he pl ane. I n s uppor tof

he row n de f

e ns e , S c hi e rt e s t i f

i e d t ha ts he di d notk n o w tha ts he h a d a n ic e p i c k i n h e r p u r s e u n til s h e w a s a lr e a d y o n th e p la n e a n d s h e d is c o v e r e d it
w hi l e l oo k in g t hrou gh her purse
. S he cl ai m ed t hatshe use d t he i ce pi ck t o o pen
m e di c a t i on bot t l e s . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, s he a dm i t t e d t a l ki ng t o S peci a l A ge nt G a r d n e ra b o u t h a v in g b r e a k f a s t b e f o r e b o a r d in g th e p la n e , b u t d e n ie d th a t s h e to ld h im s h e d is c o v e r e d th e ic e p ic k th e n . A ft erthe defense rested , the go vernm entre ca l l ed G ar dn er , w ho t es t i fi ed t hat he ha d c ons ul t e d hi s w r i t t e n r e por ta nd c onf i r m e d tha tS c hi e rt ol d hi m s he f ound th e ic e p ic k w h ile h a v in g b r e a k f a s t in th e a irp o r t. A lth o u g h n o t n o t e d in h is r e p o r t, G ar dn erre ca l l ed S chi er tell in g h im thatshe c ho se no tt o “ getri d o f” the i ce pi ck
o n c e s h e d i s c o v e r e d i tb e c a u s e i tw a s a c o l l e c t o r ’ s i t e m.10

B a s e d on t he f

or e goi ng t e s t i m ony a nd e vi de nc e , t he d i st ri ct c our tm a de t he fol l ow i ng fi nd i ng s o f fa ct : (1) the sc re eni ng ar ea of t he ai rporthad si gn s post ed t hatexpl ai ned t hatsharp o bj ec t s w er e pro h ib it ed on the pl ane; (2) S chi ersc oo ped t he i c e pi c k i nt o he rpur s e w hi l e ru sh i n g t o pa c k t he pr e vi ous ni ght ; ( 3) T e nna nt
r e a d S ch i e rhe rM i r a nda r i ght s a f t e rs he w a s t a ke n i nt o c us t ody , a nd s he unde r s t ood t hos e r i ght s a nd w a i ve d the m ; ( 4) S c hi e r ’ s s t a t e m e nt s w hi l e i n c us t ody
w er e, th u s, fr ee an d v o lu n tary ; ( 5 ) G ar d n er ’s testim o n y r eg ar d in g S ch ier’s
e xpl a na t i ons a nd t he s e que nc e of e ve nt s w a s c r e di bl e a nd w or thy of b el i e f ; ( 6) G a r dne r ’ s t e s t i m o ny tha tS c hi e rf i r s tdi s c ove r e d the i c e pi c k i n t he a i rpor tr e s t a ur a nt p r io rto b o a r d in g th e p la n e w a s c r e d ib le ; ( 7 ) S c h ie rm a d e a c o n s c io u s d e c is io n to boa r d t he pl a ne w i th t h e i c e pi c k i ns t e a d of di s c a r di ng i t ; ( 8) S c hi e rboa r de d t he pl a ne know i ng tha t s he pos s e s s e d a n i c e pi c k a nd tha t i t w a s a pr ohi bi t e d i t em ; ( 9) S c hi e rha d a c on fro n t a t i on on t he pl a ne w i th a f l i ghta t t e nda ntr e ga r di ng s e a t i ng; (10) S chi erre m ov ed t he i ce pi ck fr om her bag and at t em p ted to co ncea l i ti n h er
s l e e ve ; ( 11) t w o ot he rpa s s e nge r s not i f i e d f l i g h t at t enda nt s , w ho s e i z e d t he i c e pi c k;
a nd ( 12) t he i c e pi c k c ons t i tut e s a da nge r ous w e a pon w i thi n t he m e a ni ng of t he st atu t es. T he di stri ctcou rt co n clu ded, as a m att erof l aw w i th res pectt o C ou nt1, that t he go vernm enthad p roven b ey on d a re as on abl e dou btthatS chi erbo arded an11

ai rc r a f ti nv ol ve d i n a i rt r a ns po r t a t i on w i th a c on c e a l e d, a c c e s s i bl e w e a po n o n her pe r s on. A s f

orC ount2, t he c our tf o u n d t h atthe gove r nm e ntpr ove d be y ond a
r e a s on abl e doubtt ha tS c hi e rknow i ngl y a nd w i l l f ul l y e nt e r e d the a i r c r a f tw i t h a conceal ed w eapo n con tra ry t o scr ee ni ng re qu i re m ent s. A cc ordi n g ly , t he court f ound S c hi e rgui l ty a s c ha r ge d. A ts e nt e nc i ng, t he di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a
s e n te n c e o f

“tim e s e r v e d ,” f

o l l o w e d b y tw o y e a r s ’ s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e , o f w h ic h s ix
m on t hs w as t o be spent i n hom e det ent i on , and a fi ne of $1 0, 00 0. T his a pp ea l f ol l ow e d. II
. F i rs t , S chi eras se rt s a vi ol at i on of t he S peedy T rial A ct becaus e hert ri al began w i thi n 3 0 days of t he i ss uance of the se cond supers edi ng i nd i ctm ent . In
m aki ng t hi s c l ai m , S chi erconcedes thather tri al coun se l d id no tas k for a
c ont i nua nc e , buta r gue s nev er t he l e s s tha tthe s e c ond s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nt char ged a new offe nse a nd re st ar t ed t h e clo ck for the 30 -day peri od
. W e di sa gree . T he S peedy T ri al A ctprov i des, i nt eral i a: (c )( 1 ) In an y case i n w hi ch a pl ea of no tgu i l ty i s e nt er ed, the t ri al of a de f e nda ntc ha r ge d i n an i nf or m a t i on ori ndi c t m e ntw i th the c om m i s s i on of

a n of f e ns e s ha l l c om m e nc e w i thi n s e ve nty da y s f r om t he f i l i ng da t e ( a nd m a ki ng publ i c ) of the i nf orm a t i on ori ndi c t m e nt

. . . ( 2 ) U n le s s th e d e f

e n d a n t c o n s e n ts in w r itin g to th e c o n t r a r y , th e tr ia l s h a ll notc om m e nc e l e s s tha n thi r ty da y s fro m t he da t e on w hi c h the de f e nda nt12

f ir s t a p p e a r s th r o u g h c o u n s e l o re x p r e s s ly w a iv e s c o u n s e l a n d e le c ts to proceed pro se. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 1 6 1 ( c ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d )
. I n U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ro j a s - Co n tr e r a s , 4 7 4 U
. S. 2 31 ( 1985) , t h e Su p r e me C ou r ta dd r e s s e d the i ns t a nti s s ue , c on s i de r i ng w he the rthe Spe e dy Tr i a l A ct p ro h i b i t s c om m e nc e m e ntof a t r i a l l e s s t ha n 30 da y s a f t e ra r r a i gnm e nton a
s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nt . T he C our tf i r s tnot e d t h at§ 3161( c ) ( 2) f i xe d t he be gi nni ng po i n tf

ort he t r i a l pr e pa r a t i on pe r i od a s the f i r s ta ppe a r a nc e thr ough
c o u n s e l a n d d id n o t r e f e rto th e d a te o f

th e i n d i c t m e n t o ra s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t. I d. a t234. A c c or di ngl y , t he C our tc onc l ude d, “ C ongr e s s di d noti nt en d t h a tthe 30- da y t r i a l pr e pa r a t i on pe r i od b eg i n t o ru n f r om the da t e of

f i l i ng of a s upe r s e di ng in d ic tm e n t.” I d
. M o reo v er, a s the S upr e m e C our tnot e d, § 3161( c ) ( 1) s pe c i f i e s t he da t e of i nd i ctm entas the be g in n in g p o i ntof t he 70 -day peri od for c om m ence m entof t ri al
a nd, ha d C ongr e s s i nt e nde d f orthe 30- da y t r i a l pr e pa r a t i on pe r i od t o co m m enc e or
re com m enc e w i th the f i l i ng of a n i nd i c t me nt , i t w ou l d ha ve s o s pe c i f i e d. I d. at 23 5. A s w e have not ed, “ [t ] he m andato ry 3 0-day tri al prepara t i on peri od prov i ded by t he S peedy T ri al A cti s notau to m ati ca l l y r es t ar t ed up on the fi l i ng of a
s u p e r s e d i n g i n d i c t me n t . I n s t e a d , tr i a l c o u r t s h a v e b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n t o gr a ntSc hier also su g g e sts theg ov e rnme nt’ s e vid e nc e wa s d e fi c ie nt o n Co unt 2 b e c a us e it did 3 not establish that the Philadelphia airport se curity scre eningwas c onducted unde r the super vision of a f ederal employee of

the TSA. The statute under which Schie r wa s convicted provides: “[a] person may

not knowing ly and willfully enter , in violation of security require ments presc ribed unde r se c tio n 4 49 01 , 4 49 03 (b ) o r ( c ), or 44 90 6 of thi s tit le , an a irc ra ft or an a ir po rt are a that serv e s an air car rier or fore ign air ca

rrier .” 49 U.S.C. § 46314(a) . The Under S ec re t ary of Tra nsportation for Security is require d to provide for th e screeningof all per sons and prope rty prior to boarding a

n airc raf t, 49 U.S.C. § 44901(a), and to prescribe regulations to protec t passeng ers on an aircra ft from acts of c riminal violence, 49 U .S.C. § 44903(b). Acc ording to the t erms of the statute, to sustain a c onvic tio n und e r § 46 31 4( a), the g ov e rnme nt mus t prov e tw o th ing s: ( 1) tha t a de fend ant k

no wi ng ly and willfully

entered an aircra ft or an airport area that serves an air car rier or fore ign air c arrier, a nd (2 ) s uc h e ntr

y vio late d p re sc ribe d se c urity re qu ir e me nts . Se e 49 U. S.C. § 46 31 4( a). As to t hefi rs t e le me nt, prior

to t ri a l, S c hier s tip ulated th at sh e kn ow ing ly and wi llf ully bo ard e d a

n airc ra ft in operation in air transpor

tation. As to the second e lement, the g overnme nt presente d the testimony of a Sup e rv iso ry

Sc re e ne r at th e Phi la de lph ia a ir po rt . H e te sti fi e d that on

Ap ri l 14 , 2 00 4, thedate of Schier’ s flight, all concour ses at the airport had signs prominently posted instructingthat “shar p 13 c ont i nua nc e s w he n ne c e s s a r y f ora ddi t i ona l pr e pa r a t i o n . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r a n tle y , 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d )
. H e r e , the di s tr i c tc o u rt co m p l i e d w i th both § 3161( c ) ( 1) a nd ( c ) ( 2)
. T he i nform at i on w as fi l ed on O ct ob er13 , 20 04 and, 61 days l at er , t he t ri al com m ence d
on D ecem be r13, 2004, w hi c h w a s w i thi n the 70- da y pe r i od r e qui r e d by § 3161( c ) ( 1)
. S c hi e ra ppeared i ni t i a l l y w i th c ouns e l be f or e a m a gi s tr a t e j udge on Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , w h i ch w as m o re th a n 3 0 d ays b efo re t h e t ri al b eg an , t h u s al so
s a t i s f y i ng the r e qui r e m e nt s of § 3161( c ) ( 2)
. S e e R oj a s - C ont r e r a s , 474 U
. S
. a t236; B r a nt l e y , 68 F
. 3d a t1288. S i m pl y put , w e c a n f i nd no e r r orba s e d on the S pe e dy T r ia l A c t. W e l i ke w i s e a r e unpe r s ua d ed by S c hi e r ’ s va r i ous c ha l l e nge s t o t he
s u ffi ci en cy of

the e vi de nc e t o s uppor the rc onvi c t i on on C ount1. U nde r49 3objects” w ereprohibited from the airplanes. In short, the evidenc e was suff icient to convict Schier of violating§ 46314(a) , as cha rg ed in the indictment.

14 U
. S
. C
. § 46505( b) ( 1) , “ [ a ] n i ndi vi dua l s ha l l be f i n ed unde rt i t l e 18, i m pr i s one d f or
no tm ore than 1 0 yea rs , or bo th , if th e in d iv idual
. . . w hen o n, or at t em pt i ng t o g et
o n , a n a ir c r a f

t in , o rin te n d e d f

o ro p e r a tio n in , a irtr a n s p o r ta tio n o rin tr a s ta te a ir tr a n s p o r ta tio n , h a s o n o ra b o u t th e in d iv id u a l o rth e p r o p e r ty o f t h e i n d iv id u a l a
c o n c e a le d d a n g e r o u s w e a p o n th a t is o rw o u ld b e a c c e s s ib le to th e in d iv id u a l in f l i ght
. ” 49 U
. S
. C
. § 46505( b) ( 1)
. T hus , t o s us t a i n a c onvi c t i on unde rt hi s s e c t i on, th e g o v e r n m e n t m u s t p r o v e th r e e th in g s : ( 1 ) th e d e f e n d a n t b o a r d e d , o ra tte m p te d to bo ar d, an ai rc ra fti n, or i nt ended for ai r tra nspo rt at io n ; ( 2) t he defendanthad o n h er pe r s o n a c o n c e a l e d d a n g e r o u s w e a p o n ; a n d ( 3 ) th e d a n g e r o u s w e a p o n w a s or
w o u ld b e a c c e s s ib le to th e d e f e n d a n t d u r in g f

lig h t. S e e id
. W he n c oupl e d w i th S c hi e r ’ s pr et ri al c onc e s s i ons - - ( 1) s he know i ngl y a nd
w i l l ful l y boarded an ai rc ra fti n o pera t i on i n ai r tra nspo rt at i on ; (2) s he ca rr i ed an ic e p ic k in to a s e c u r e a r e a o f th e a irp o r t; a n d ( 3 ) a n ic e p ic k is a n in h e r e n tly d an g er o u s w ea p o n -- th e g o v er n m en t p re se n ted am p le ev id en ce to su p p o rt S ch ier’s
c o n v ic tio n . T o th e e x te n t S c h ie ra s s e r ts th e g o v e r n m e n t’ s e v i d e n c e f a ile d to
e s t a bl i s h t ha ts he a c t e d w i l l f ul l y orknow i ngl y , a s the e vi de nc e d i d n ots how s he h a d a c c e s s t o th e i c e p i c k wh i l e o n t h e p l a n e , we o b s e r v e t h a td u r i n g h e ro wn t es t i m on y, S chi erst ated t hatshe tri ed t o h i de t he i ce pi ck w hi l e on t he pl ane.We rejec t Schier’s c halleng e to the district cour t’s findingthat Special Ag ent Gardner 4 was c redible. Spec ial Ag ent Gardner testified that Schier told him that she discovered the icepick in her purse prior to boa

rding the plane, while having brea kfast with her husban d , an dth atshe decide d to leave it in her purse beca use it wa s a collector ’s item. Prior to trial, Schier conce ded she wa s a n a nti qu e s c oll e c tor . O n th is reco rd , w e c ann ot c on c lud e that G ard ne r’ s te sti mony

is unbelievableon its fa ce, and thus w e will not disturb the district judge ’s credibility findingon that point. Cf. United States v. Calde ron, 127 F .3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir. 1997) (holdingthat testimony is incredible a s a matter of law w h en i t i s “unbelieva ble on its face ” and relates to “ fac ts that the witness phy sically

could not have possibly

o bserve d or events that could not have oc curred under the laws of nature.”(internal quotations and brac kets omitted)). Al tho ugh c ouns e l in dic ate d, duri ngB ro wn e ll’ s c ro ss- e xami natio n, that “ Jenc ks ha s ju st 5 been provided to me,” at no point did counsel object to his rec eipt of B rowne ll’s report, ba sed either on the J encks A ct or on a ny other ground. 15 M o r e o v e r , tw o f

e llo w p a s s e n g e r s te s tif

ie d t h a t th e y s a w S c h ie rh id e th e ic e p ic k in he rs l e e ve a nd t he n m o v e i t i n t o he rpur s e . O n thi s r e c or d, w e c a nnotc onc l ude 4 t ha tS c hi e r ’ s c onvi c t i o n r e s ul t e d i n “ a m a ni f e s tm i s c a r r i a ge of

j us t i c e ” ortha t“ t he
e v id e n c e o n a k e y e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e [ w a s ] s o t e n u o u s th a t a c o n v ic tio n w o u ld be shocki ng . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B i chse l , 15 6 F
. 3d 11 48 , 11 50 (11t h C i r. 19 98 ). F i na l l y , S c hi e r a r gue s , f or the f i r s t t i m e on a ppe a l , that t h e g o v e r nm e nt vi ol at ed t he Je ncks A ctby fa i l i ng t o p rodu ce the re po rt s o f S p ec i al A gent s G ar dn er
an d M o ffat tan d T S A em p l o yee B ro w n el l , p ri o r t o tri al
. T h e Jen ck s A ctp ro v i d es: 5 A ft era w i tness ca l l ed by t he U n it ed S t at es has t es t i fi ed on di re ct e xa m i na t i on, t he c our ts ha l l , o n m ot i on of the de f e nda nt , or de rthe U ni t e d St a t e s t o p r o d u c e a n y s t a t e me n t ( a s h e r e i n a f t e r d e f i n e d ) of t he w i t ne s s i n t he pos s e s s i on of t he U ni t e d S t a t e s w hi c h r e l a t e s t o the subj ec tm att eras t o w hi ch t he w itness has t es t i fi ed. If the ent i re c ont e nt s of

a ny s uc h s t a t e m e nt rel a t e t o the s ubj e c tm a t t e rof t he t es t i m on y of the w i tness , the co u rt shal l order i tt o b e del i vere d di re ct l y t o t he defendantfor hi s e xam i nat i on and u se .16

1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 0 0 ( b ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d )
. P l a i nl y , the J e nc ks A c t doe s not a ppl y t o the s t a t e m e nt s of n o n -t est i f

y i ng
w i t ness es . U ni t ed S t at es v . W i l l i am s, 87 5 F
. 2d 84 6, 85 4 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ); U ni t ed S tates v. P epe, 74 7 F
. 2d 63 2, 65 7 n
. 37 (11t h C i r. 19 84 ). R ather, “ [t ] he Je ncks A ct
a ppl i e s t o a ny w i tne s s st at em e nti n t he U ni t e d S t a t e s ’ s pos s e s s i on tha tr e l a t e s t o t he
s ubj e c tm a t t e rof

t he w i tne s s ’ s di r e c tt e s t i m ony . ” U n i t ed S t at e s v. D e l ga do, 56 F
. 3 d 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 6 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ; s e e a ls o 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 0 0 . A c c o r d in g ly , it is cl ear t h atS p eci al A g en tM o ffat t’s n o t es are n o tco v ered b y t h e Jen ck s A ctb ecau se M o f f a tt d id n o t te s tif

y a t th e tr ia l. A s f o rS p e c ia l A g e n t G a r d n e r ’s a n d B r o w n e ll’s n o te s , S c h ie r ’s c o u n s e l d id notc om pl y w i t h t he r e qui r e m e nt s of the s t a tut e be c a us e he ne ve rm ove d or
re qu es t ed the di stri ct court for prod uct i on of the no t es . S ee 18 U
. S .C . § 3 5 0 0 (b ). “T h e g e n e r a l ru le [ f

o rJ e n c k s A c t m a te r ia ls ] is th a t a d e f e n d a n t is r e q u ir e d to
r e que s tdi s c l os ur e f

ol l ow i ng the w i tne s s ’ s di r e c tt e s t i m ony . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K na pp, 25 F
. 3d 451, 461 ( 7t h C i r . 1994) ( c i t i ng U n i t ed S t a t e s v. M a c k, 892 F
. 2d 13 4, 13 7 (1stC i r. 19 89 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. P et i t o, 67 1 F
. 2d 68 , 73 -7 4 (2d C i r. 1 9 8 2 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . L y m a n , 5 9 2 F .2 d 4 9 6 , 4 9 8
- 9 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) ) . T h u s , it is
o n ly u p o n th e d e f

e n d a n t’s r e q u e s t th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t e x e r c is e s i t s d i s c r e tio n a s to t he prod uct i on of Je ncks m at er i al s. C f. V aler a, 84 5 F
. 2d at92 7 (re vi ew i ng di stri ct17

c our t ’ s e nf

or c e m e ntof

J e nc ks a nd B r a dy di s c l os ur e r e qui r e m e nt s f ora bus e of d i s c r e t i o n ) ; L e p is c o p o , 4 2 9 F .2 d a t 2 5 9
- 6 0 ( f in d in g n o a b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n in di s t r i c tc our t ’ s r e qui r e m e nttha tde f e nda ntr e qu est , r e c e i ve , a nd e xa m i ne J e nc ks
m a t e r i a l s i n t he pr e s e nc e of the j ur y )
. B a s e d on S ch i er’ s fa i l ur e t o m a ke s uc h a
r e q u e s t, w e f

in d n o e r r o r , p la in o ro th e r w is e , b a s e d o n th e J e n c k s A c t. In su m , w e d isce rn n o re v er sib le er ro r h er e a n d , acc o rd in g ly, aff irm S h ier’s
co n v i ct i o n s. AF F I RME D.