# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 29 81

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Derri ck T. Hagg ard

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 6, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Ju ne 10 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

In 20 12
, a jury fo un d Derri ck Hag ga rd gu il ty of 2 7 c o u n t s of a 59 -co un t in di ct m en t ch arg in g ei gh t co -d efen da nt s wit h co ns pi racy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 37 1; ba nk frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 44 ; ch eck -co un te rfei ti ng , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 51 3( a); an d ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft
, in vi ol at i on of 18 U.S.C.§ 10 28 A. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Hag ga rd to an ag gr eg at e te rm of 21 6 m on th s 1
in pr is on an d 5 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d or de red res ti tu ti on of $7 6,2 95 .68

. Hag ga rd ap pe al s, rai si ng a nu m be r of cl ai m s in a co un se le d br ie f fil ed un de r And ers

v. Cal ifo rn ia
, 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7)
, an d in a pr o se su pp le m en ta l b rie f. Fo r th e

reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we af fir m

.

Hag ga rd ha s no t ch al le ng ed th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, whi ch in cl ud ed th e
te st im on y of si x co op erat in g co -d efen da nt s who en te red gu il ty pl eas

. Bri efl y , th e

ev id en ce sh owe d th at Hag ga rd an d hi s c o

- d e f en da nt s pa rti ci pa te d in a sc he m e th at in vo lv ed br eak in g in to m ai lb ox es an d st eal in g m ai l, crea ti ng co un te rfei t ch eck s us in g in fo rm at io n fro m so me of th e st ol en m ai l, cas hi ng or at te m pt in g to cas h th e

co un te rfei t ch eck s at FDIC-i ns ur ed fin an ci al i n s ti tu ti on s, us in g fal se id en ti fic at io n do cu m en ts th ey

crea te d o r ob ta in ed , and recr ui ti ng ot he rs to ass is t i n t he sch em e.

Add res si ng th e arg um en ts rai se d on ap pe al
, we fir st co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e i t s d i s c r e t io n in de nyin g de fen se co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw sh or tl y be fo re tri al
, gi ve n th at Hag ga rd di d no t ex pr es s jus ti fia bl e di ss at is fact io n wit h

co un s e l at th e he ari ng

. See Uni te d St at es v. Bai sd en , 71 3 F.3 d 45 0, 45 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). W e al so fin d n o erro r in th e de ni al of Hag ga rd ’s m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t pu rs ua nt to th e Sp eed y Tria l Act, whi ch was no t vi ol at ed by th e gr an t of

a co -d efen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r a co n t i n u a n c e

. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 31 61 (c)( 1)
, (h )(1 ); Uni te d St at es v. Arrel la no -Garc ia
, 47 1 F.3 d 89 7, 89 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (u nd er Sp eed y T ri al A ct , excl us io ns of ti m e at tri bu ta bl e to on e de fen da nt ap pl y to al l co -d efen da nt s)

. Fu rth er, the di st ric t cou rt pro pe rly den ie d Hag ga rd ’s ob jecti on to th e jury po ol
, an d hi s rel at ed req ue st fo r a ch an ge of ve nu e, be cau se Hag g a r d d i d no t as se rt th at a

“ syste m at ic ex cl us io n” of Afri can Am eri cans ca use d the ir unde r- re pr es en ta tio n on th e jury ve ni re. See Uni te d St at es v. Rod rig ue z, 58 1 F.3d 77 5, 79 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). As

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard E. Dor r, la te a Uni te d St a te s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-to Hag ga rd ’s c l a i m reg ard in g fal se te st im on y , we no te th at wit ne ss cred ib il it y is

so le ly wit hi n th e jury’ s pr ov in ce. See Uni te d St at es v. W ie st , 59 6 F.3 d 90 6, 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ).

W e fin d no ne of th e o th er al le ge d tri al erro rs to be pr ejud ic ia l. In pa rti cu la r, th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh en it de ni ed Hag ga rd ’s m ot io n for a

m is tri al an d in st ead in st ru ct ed th e jury to di sr eg ard a co m m en t by t h e pr os ecu to r du rin g hi s op en in g st at em en t. See Uni te d St at e s v. Urb in a, 43 1 F.3 d 30 5, 31 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (to be en ti t l e d to m is tri al
, de fen da nt ne ed ed to es ta bl is h th at co m m en ts
pr ejud ic ia ll y affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s so as to de pr iv e hi m of fai r tri al ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Pat te rs on , 68 4 F.3 d 79 4, 79 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (juro rs are pr es um ed to fo ll ow co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 3 S. Ct

. 99 2 (2 01 3)

. Nor di d th e co ur t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g an ov ern ig ht rece ss aft er a wit ne ss be cam e te m po rari ly il l on th e wit ne ss st an d, or in de nyin g Hag ga rd ’s req ue st to pl ay fo r th e jury an ho ur

lo ng vi de o of a po li ce in te rv ie w of a co -d efen da nt who ha d al read y ack n o wled ge d rel ev an t co nt en t of th e vi de o du rin g cro ss -ex am in at io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Ch ah ia
, 54 4 F.3 d 89 0, 89 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (co ur t of ap pe al s wil l rev ers e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of co nt in ua nc e on ly i f co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n an d m ov in g pa rty was pr ejud ic ed

as res ul t); Uni te d St at es v. Frayer, 9 F.3 d 13 67
, 13 73 -7 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (tr ia l co ur ts ha ve di sc ret io n to pl ac e r e a s o na bl e li m it s on pr es en ta ti on of ev id en ce to pr ev en t

un du e d el ay , wast e o f ti m e, or ne ed le ss pre se nt at io n o f cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce).

Fi na ll y , we se e n ot hi ng in th e reco rd to su gg es t th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in i mp o si ng se nt en ce, an d we co nc lu de th at th e se nt en ce was no t

un reas on ab le

.

W e ha ve rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U

. S.
75 , 80 (1 98 8)
, a n d ha ve fo un d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t, an d we g ran t co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-