[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 70 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cr-2 00 49 -CM A-3

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Cro ss App el la nt , ve rs us YENKY SANCHEZ , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen dant -Ap pe ll an t ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Cro ss App el le e.

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 17 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 1 of 17PER CURI AM:

Yen ky Sanc he z ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to c omm ithe al th care frau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 49 , Cou nt1; co ns pi racy to c omm ithe al th care frau d i n c on ne ct io n wi th au th en ti cat io n fe atur es , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8( a)(3 ) an d (f

), Co un t 2 ; an d n in e co un ts of a gg rav at edid en ti ty the ft, i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ), Co un ts 3 thr ou gh 9, 1 1, an d 1 2. Sa nc he z se ek s the rev ers al of h is co nv ic ti on s an d ajud gm en t o f acqui tt al on th e g ro un d t ha t th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi ct . Alte rn at iv el y , he s eek s the rev ers al of h is co nv ic ti on s an d ane w tri al on gro un ds th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt ab us edit s d is cret io n (1 ) in refu si ng to adm itin to ev id en ce e- m ai ls fro m hi s co -co ns pi rat or , Rau l Di azPere ra, b ecau se th ey

co nt ai ne d h ears ay , (2) inadm it ti ng Diaz -Per era’s ju dg m en t o f co nv ic ti on an d afactua l p ro ffer(supp orti ng th e co nv ic ti on ) du rin g t he Gov ern m en t’s re bu tt al , invi ol at io n o f hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t o f 1 co nf ro nt at io n, an d (3 ) inde nyin g h is m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ba se d, i n p art , on Gov ern m en t d is co ve ry

vi ol at io ns an d fa il ur e to di sc lo se in fo rm at io n p ur po rte dl y fav or ab le to hi m

invi ol at io n o f Bra dyv. Mar ylan d , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S .Ct. 1 19 4, 1 0 L.Ed.2 d 2 15 (19 63 ). San ch ez al so co nt en ds th atim pr op er co m

m en ts by the Diaz-Perer a and Eug enio Ramos Perez, cha rg ed as c o-conspirators with Sanchez, pled 1 guilty to the conspirac ies of which Sanc hez was convic ted and oneof the identify theft cha rg es. The prof fer ref err ed to in the text was presente d to the court at Diaz-Perer a’s plea hearing. 2 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 2 of 17pr os ecu to r de ni edhi m a fai r tr ia l. We affirm .

I. The Flo rid a Dep art m en t o f Ch il dr enan d F am il ie s (“ DCF”) he lp s cl ie nt s ob ta in publ ic ass is ta nc e b en efi ts , in cl ud in g M ed ic are. DCF m ai nt ai ns a st at ewid e co m pu te r da te ab as e fo r it s cl ie nt s, wh ic h i nc lu de s the ir a dd res se s, d at es of b irt h, So ci al Secu rit y

nu m be rs , and , if ap pl ic ab le , th ei r Med ic are b en efi ci ary nu m be rs (“ M-n um be rs ”). The in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinth is da taba se is st or edinth e FLORIDA da taba se (“ FLORIDA”). DCF em pl oys st ric t s ecu rit y

m eas ur es to sa feg ua rdth e p ers on al in fo rm at io n i t s to res inFLORIDA. Beg in ni ng inNov em

be r 20 08 an d e nd in g wi th hi s arres t o n F eb ru ary 23 , 20 11 , San ch ez wo rk edat DCF ’s Mia m i ca ll cen te r, an swe rin g p ho ne cal ls fro m DCF cl ie nt s ac ro ss Flo rid a, an d h adacce ss to DCF’s cl ie ntda taba se inFLORIDA. BetweenFeb ru ary 20 09 an d F eb ru ary 20 10 , Diaz- Pere ra was San ch ez’s supe rv is or , andth ey

de ve lo pe d aclo se pe rs on al rel at io ns hi p. DCF t erm in at ed Diaz -Per era’s em

pl oym en t o n Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 0, fo r po orpe rfo rm an ce. InMarc h 2 00 9, Di az-P erez ask edReb eccaTorr es Ro dr ig ue z (“ Torr es ”) i f sh e kne w anyon e in te res te d i n p ur ch as in g M -num be rs forth e p ur

po se of co m m it ti ng Med ic are f

rau d. Sh e sa idth atsh e d idno t, b utaft er s he was c ha rg ed with acri m in al off

en se (no t re le va nthe re), s he co nt act edfed eral law en fo rcem en t. 3 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 3 of 17Und er the supe rv is io n o f a Po st al Ins pe ct or , sh e g otEug en io Ram os Pere z

(“ Ram os ”) t o a rran ge a m eet in g wi th Diaz -Per era. OnOcto be r 28 , 20 10 , sh e m et with t he two m en . She to ldth em th atsh e kne w an a tt orne y who want edto pu rch as e 2 00 ,00 0 M -num be rs . Diaz- Pere ra s ai d h e co ul d o bt ai n 1 00 -1 50 M- 2 nu m be rs a da y

fora fee o f $1 5 fo r eac h n um be r. He wou ldrece iv e $ 9 o f th e fee , of whi chhe wou ldgi ve $4 to hi s s ou rce a t DCF ; To rres an d R am os co ul d s pl itth e rem ai ni ng $6 . The Po st al Ins pe ct orto ldTorr es to askDiaz -Per era f or 15 0 M -num

be rs , so th ey co ul d b e te st ed . She di d a s i ns tru ct ed , and , onDecem be r 15 , 20 10 , DiazPere ra s ol d h er a l is t o f 14 8 M -num be rs for $1 ,35 0. Th e num

be rs ap pe aredon se ve n s pr ead sh eet s, wi th each pa ge di vi de d i nt o s ev enco lu m ns co nt ai ni ng all th e in fo rm at io n M ed ic are wo ul d re qu ire forrei m bu rs em en t—th e cl ie nt s’ nam es , dat es of bi rth , Soc ia l Se cu rity

nu m be rs an d M -num

be rs . Diaz- Pere ra as ke d To rres ho w m an y m or e th e p ur ch as er wan te d, an d s he sai d 2 00 ,00 0. On J anua ry

18 , 20 11 , Diaz- Pere ra, Ram os , andTorr es m etinth e p ark in g l ot of a Mi am i re st au ran t. Dia z-Pe rerash owe d To rres anen ve lo pe with t he do cu m en ts in si de , and , aft er a b rie f co nv ers at io n, s he wentto he r car to ge t the

Torre s wore a

rec ordingdeviceand the mee ting wa s videotaped by fede ral a g ents and 2 admitted into evidence at Sanche z’s trial. 4

Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 4 of 17m on ey

to pa y hi m . At th is po in t, Di az-P erer a an d R am os were arres te d, an d t he en ve lo p was sei zed . It co nt ai ne d fo rty-fou r pa ge s o f sp read sh eet s, ea chwith s ev en co lu m ns co nt ai ni ng with re sp ectto 1,3 13 DCF cl ie nt s the same sort o f in fo rm at io n th e sp read sh eet s p ro vi de d o n Oct ob er 2 8. San ch ez was arre st edon Feb ru ary 23 , 20 11 . The i nv es ti ga to rs ha d di sc ov eredvi a Dia z-Pe rera ’s cel lp ho ne reco rd s tha t b etweenOcto be r 28 an d Decem be r 15 , 20 10 , San ch ez h ada co nv ers at io n wi th Diaz -Per era 1 89 ti m es for ov er n in e h ou rs , andth atSan ch ez h adsen t Di az-P erer a 2 81 tex t m es sa ge s. BetweenDecem

be r 15 an d J anua ry

18 , 20 11 , San ch ez s en t h im 14 0 t ex t m es sa ge s. DCF/ FLORIDA en tri es est ab li sh edth atSan ch ez o bt ai ne d t he M-n um be rs an d t he co m pl em en ta ry

in fo rm at io n fo r al l 1 48 DCF cl ie nt s l is te d o n t he Decem be r 15 sp read sh eet s Di az-P erer a g av e Torres , andth atSan ch ez u se d F LORIDA to acce ss th e in fo rm at io n fo r 43 7 o f th e cl ie nt s l is te d o n t he sp read sh eet s Di az-P erer a br ou gh t t o t he Jan ua ry

18 m eet in g.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo whethe r su ffi ci en t ev id en ce s up po rts a co nv ic ti on , res ol vi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t he ve rd ic t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Far le y , 60 7 F .3d12 94 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Whe n c on si de rin g asu ffi ci en cy ch al le ng e, we ta ke th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t an d de te rm in e whe th er the jury co ul d h av e fo un d t he de fen da ntgu il ty bas edon th at 5 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 5 of 17ev id en ce. Id. Ques ti on s o f cre di bi li ty andweig htof t he ev id en ce ar e le ft t o t he

jury, so we affi rm

when th e rec or d p ro vi de s a r eas on ab le ba si s fo r th e co nv ic ti on . Id. If di sb el ie ve d, “ [t]he de fen da nt ’s owntes ti m on y canbe co ns id eredby the jury as subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu nt , 52 6 F .3d73 9, 7 45 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . To affi rm th e co nv ic ti on , th e ev id en ce d oe s n otne edto be in co ns is te ntwith e ve ry

th eo ry of i nn oc en ce. Id. To es tabl is h S an ch ez’s g ui lton each of the co ns pi racy char ge s, the Gov ern m en t h adto pro ve “ (1 ) th ata co ns pi racy exi st ed ; (2 ) th at[San ch ez] kn ew ab ou t the co ns pi racy; an d (3 ) th at[he ] kn owi ng ly j oi ne d t he co ns pi racy.” Uni te d St at es v. Gar ci a- Berc ov ic h , 58 2 F .3d12 34 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). A defe nd an t’s kn owi ng pa rti ci pa ti on ina co ns pi racy m ay “be in ferr edfro m

ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntto okact io n t ha t fu rth eredth e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. C oo pe r , 87 3 F.2 d 2 69 , 27 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) . The Go ve rn m en t d idno t h av e to pro ve San ch ez’s pa rti ci pa ti on by dire ctev id en ce, b utco ul d re ly upo n t he su rro un di ng ci rcu m st an ces th atim

pl y a co m m on pu rp os e an d p la n. Uni te d Sta tes v. McDo wel l , 25 0 F .3d13 54 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Suc h e vi de nc e in cl ud es “ in fere nc es fro m th e co nduc t o f th e al le ge d p art ic ip an ts or f ro m cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f a

Sanchez testified in his own defe nse. 3 6 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 6 of 17sc he m e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 40 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 05 )

(quo ta ti onom it te d) . Inord er t o c on vi ctSan ch ez o f ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft, the Gov ern m en t ha d t o e st ab li sh th athe : (1 ) kn owi ng ly tran sf erre d, p os se ss ed , or u se d; (2) a pe rs on ’s m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n; (3) witho utlawf ul au th or it y ; (4 ) du rin g a ndin rel at io n t o afel on y

enum erat edin18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( c). Uni te d Sta tes v. Bar ri ng to n , 64 8 F .3d11 78 , 11 92 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), cer t. d en ie d, 13 1 S .Ct. 1 06 6 (2 01 2) . Con sp ira cy

to co m m ithe al th care frau d i n c on ne ct io n wi th au th en ti cat io n featur es un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8( a)(3 ) is on e o f th e enum erat edfel on ie s i n § 1 02 8A( c). 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(c)(4 ). A “ m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n” in cl ud es , in te r al ia , a na m e, SSN, o r da te of b irt h. Id. § 1 02 8( d) (7 ). The ev id en ce o f gu il t i n t hi s ca se was o ve rwh el m in g. Acco rd in gl y , itwas su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt S an ch ez’s co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to c omm ithe al th care frau d, co ns pi racy to c omm ithe al th care frau d i n c on ne ct io n wi th au th en ti cat io n featur es , andag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft. II. San ch ez co nt en ds th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng as he ars ay

ou t-o f-co urt s ta te m en ts Diaz -Per era m ad e in em ai ls to hi m se lf a ndDCF em pl oyees. We revi ew th is ev id en ti ary ru li ng for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d 7 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 7 of 17St at es v. Bra dl ey , 64 4 F .3d12 13 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S .Ct. 23 75 (20 12 ). Even if the re was anab us e o f di sc ret io n, we re ve rs e o nl y if the ru li ng was n otha rm le ss . Id. “An erro r is ha rm le ss un le ss th ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atitaffe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Id. (al te rat io n and qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e n eedno t re ve rs e a co nv ic ti on if the ev id en ti ary erro r “ ha d no subs ta nt ia l i nf

lu en ce o n t he ou tc om e, an d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce u ni nf

ect edby erro r supp orts th e v erd ic t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha wki ns , 90 5 F .2d14 89 , 14 93 (11 th Ci r. 19 90 ). An err orinex cl ud in g e vi de nc e al so is ha rm le ss if the co nt en t o f th e ev id en ce was adm it te d t hr ou ghwitne ss tes ti m on y . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma te os , 62 3 F.3 d 1 35 0, 1 36 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 54 0 (2 01 1) . Hears ay is a st at em en t, o th er tha n o ne m ad e b y th e d ecl aran t wh il e te st ifyin g a t the tri al or h eari ng , off eredinev id en ce t o p ro ve th e trut h o f th e m atte r as se rte d. Fe d. R. Ev id . 80 1( c). Hears ay ge ne ral ly is n otadm is si bl e. Fed . R. Evi d. 8 02 . A “ st at em en t” is de fin edas “ a p ers on ’s ora l as se rti on , writte n as se rti on , or n on ve rb al co nduc t, i f th e p ers on in te nd editas a n a ss ert io n.” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (a). “ If the si gn ifi can ce o f anoff eredst at em en t l ie s s ol el y inth e fac t tha t itwas m ad e, no is su e is rai se d a s t o the tru th of a nyth in g a ss ert ed , andth e st at em en t i s n othe ars ay .” Mat eo s , 62 3 F .3dat 1 36 4 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The em ai ls co nt ai ne d o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en ts , bu t the y were n otoff

eredforth e trut h o f 8 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 8 of 17th ei r co nt en ts an d t hu s d idno t co ns ti tu te he ars ay . Alth ou gh th e co urt was wron g

in de te rm in in g t ha t the y

were o ffer edforth e trut h o f th ei r co nt en ts , inli gh t o f th e factth attwo witne ss es in vo lv edwith t he em ai ls tes ti fie d a s t o the ir c on te nt s an d th e o ve rwh el m in g p ro of

of g ui lt , th e ex cl us io n o f th e e-m ai ls was h arm le ss .

III. San ch ez ar gu es th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt ab us edit s d is cret io n a ndde ni edhi m th e ri gh t o f co nf

ro nt at io n i n a dm it ti ng in to ev id en ce dur in g t he Gov ern m en t’s reb ut ta l p ro of

of Di az-P erer a’s co nv ic ti on an d t he factua l p red ic at e p res en te d t o th e Dis tri ctCo urt t o s up po rt i t. Whil e we rev ie w a co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, we re vi ew de no vo a cl ai m th atanev id en ti ary ru li ng de ni ed th e d efen da nthi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t o f co nf ro nt at io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga ri , 57 2 F .3d13 52 , 13 61 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The Six th Am en dm en t’s Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e p ro hi bi ts th e adm is si on of te st im on ia l o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en ts , exc ep t wh enth e wit ne ss is un av ai labl e an d t he de fen da ntha d apri orop po rtu ni ty to cr os s- ex am in e th e witne ss . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ji min ez , 56 4 F .3d12 80 , 12 86 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). Howev er, “ th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se pro hi bi ts on ly stat em en ts th atco ns ti tu te im pe rm is si bl e h ears ay .” Id. (em ph as is om it te d) . W

he n the st at em en ts are o ffer edfor a pu rp os e o th er tha n

9 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 9 of 17es tabl is hi ng th e trut h o f th e m atte r as se rte d, the Claus e d oe s n otpro hi bi t s uc h u se .

Id. at 1 28 6- 87 . Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e err or s ar e subjec t t o h arm le ss erro r an al y si s. Gar i , 57 2 F .3dat 1 36 2. Harm le ss erro r oc cu rs whenitis “be y on d areas on ab le do ub t th atth e err or

co m pl ai ne d o f di d n otco nt rib ut e to th e v erd ic t o bt ai ne d.” Id. (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 8 06 pro vi de s, i n re le va ntpa rt: Whe n ahe ars ay

st at em en t . . . has be enadm itte d i n e vi de nc e, th e de cl aran t’s cr ed ib il it y

m ay be att ack ed , andth ensupp orte d, b y an y ev id en ce tha t wo ul d b e adm is si bl e fo r th os e p ur po se s i f th e d ecl aran t ha d t es ti fie d a s a wi tn es s. Th e co urt m ay adm itev id en ce o f th e de cl aran t’s i nc on si st en t s ta te m en t o r co nduc t, re ga rd le ss of wh enit oc cu rredor wh ethe r th e d ecl aran t h adanop po rtu ni ty to ex pl ai n o r de ny it. Fed . R. Evi d. 8 06 . The t es t fo r Ru le 80 6 “ is whet he r th e o ut -o f-co urt s ta te m en ts wou ldha ve be enadm is si bl e fo r im pe ach m en t p ur

po se s h adth e co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts be ende li ve redfro m th e wit ne ss st an d b y

th e co -co ns pi rat or

hi m se lf, no t as he ars ay

ab ou t wh athe sai d dur in g t he co ns pi racy bu t as co nt em po ran eo us in -co urt s ta te m en ts .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Gr an t , 25 6 F .3d11 46 , 11 54 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The o bjec ti ve of a dm it ti ng in co ns is te ntst at em en ts forim pe ach m en t pu rp os es is to aidth e jury in d eci di ng th e wit ne ss ’s cred ib il it y , no t t o s ho w th at th e st at em en ts are tru e. Id. at 1 15 6. 10

Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 10 of 17Und er Fe d. R. Ev id . 60 9, a wi tn es s’ cha ract er fo r truthf ul ne ss canbe at ta ck edwith acri m in al co nv ic ti on if the co nv ic ti on en ta il edon e o r m or e y ears of im pr is on m en t o r ha d a n e le m en t o f th e cri m e b ei ng a di sh on es t ac t o r fal se st at em en t. Fed . R. Evi d. 6 09 (a). If t he witne ss is no t the de fen dant , th e adm is si on of th e co nv ic ti on is subjec t t o F ed . R. Evi d. 4 03 . Fed . R. Evi d. 6 09 (a)( 1) (A). A pa rty m ay

als o i nt ro du ce a wi tn es s’ pri orst at em en t i f th e wit ne ss tes ti fie s an d i s subjec t t o c ro ss -ex am in at io n, an d t he st at em en t was gi ve n u nd er p en al ty of pe rjury ata he ari ng an d i s i nc on si st en t wi th th e wit ne ss ’ te st im on y . Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (d )(1 )(A). Reg ard in g d is cl os ur es un de r Fed . R. Cri m . P. 16 , th e ru le pro vi de s tha t, at th e d efen da nt ’s reque st , th e Gov ern m en t m us t al lo w th e d efen da ntto in sp ectan d to co py any

pape rs an d d oc um en ts inth e g ov ern m en t’s p os se ss io n, cu st od y , or co nt ro l, an d tha t “ th e g ov ern m en t i nt en ds to us e . . . in i ts cas e-i n- ch ie f attri al .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 16 (a)( 1) (E)(i i). Ru le 16 pe rm it s the Gov ern m en t t o p res en t reb ut ta l ev id en ce wi th ou t p rio r no ti ce b ecau se th e Ru le ’s no ti ce re qu ire m en ts ap pl y on ly to the go ve rn m en t’s ca se -in -ch ie f. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Fraz ie r , 38 7 F.3 d 1 24 4, 1 26 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (ap pl y in g t he “ cas e-i n- ch ie f” l an gu ag e fo un d i n Ru le 16 (a)( 1) (G)); Uni te d Sta tes v. Win dh am , 48 9 F .2d13 89 , 13 92 (5t h C ir. 1 97 4) (“ Reb ut ta l wi tn es se s ar e a rec og ni zedex cep ti on to all witne ss di sc lo su re 11 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 11 of 17requi rem en ts .”). Inad di ti on , “ [v ]iol at io ns of Rul e 1 6 wi ll res ul t i n arev ers al of

co nv ic ti on on ly if su cha vi ol at io n p reju di ces a de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C

ha stai n , 19 8 F .3d13 38 , 13 48 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . As an in it ia l m at te r, be cau se th e ch al le ng edex hi bi ts —ev id en ce o f Dia zPere ra’s co nv ic ti on an d t he factua l p red ic at e supp orti ng it—wer e o ffer eddu rin g reb ut ta l, the Gov ern m en t was no t re qu ire d t o p ro vi de no ti ce u nd er Ru le 16 . Fu rth erm or e, be cau se San ch ez, i n t es ti fy in g i n h is ownde fen se , ess en ti al ly rep eat edDiaz -Per era’s h ears ay st at em en ts , th e co urt p ro pe rly adm it te d Di azPere ra’s jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti onforim pe ach m en t p ur

po se s. Be cau se th e h ears ay st at em en ts di d n otco nt rad ic t an y of Di az-P erer a’s st at em en ts inth e fac tu al pro ffer he pre se nt edto th e co urt i n t en de rin g h is pl ea o f gu il ty, ho wev er, the co urt erredin adm it ti ng th e p ro ffer . This erro r was harm le ss , ho wev er, g iv enth e o ve rwh el m in g ev id en ce o f San ch ez’s g ui lt . IV. San ch ez ar gu es th atth e Gov ern m en t co m m it te d a Bra dyvi ol at io n b y pr ov id in g a n i na de qu at e d is cl os ur e reg ard in g Di az-P erer a’s co nt actwith Dam ari s an d C ed an o a ndth at , gi ve n t he vi ol at io n, the co urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d h im a ne w tri al . The d ay

be fo re the tri al , th e Gov ern m en t d is cl os edth e fo ll owi ng 12 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 12 of 17in fo rm at io n: “ Rau l Di az-P erer a co nt act edDam ari s R od rig ue z an d M ari a Ced an o,

two [DFC] em

pl oyees wh o wo rk

with h os pi ce ca re an d a ss is te d l iv in g fa ci li ti es , fo r So ci al Secu rit y

an d M ed ic are i nf

orm at io n re ga rd in g n ur si ng ho m e cl ie nt s. Ro dr ig ue z an d C ed an o d idno t re sp on d t o Di ez-P erer a.” San ch ez cl ai m s tha t thi s di sc lo su re o m it te d wh enth e co nt act s o ccu rred , whet he r Dia z-Pe rerape rs on al ly m etwith t he se s emplo y ees , andwhatDiaz- Pere ra ac tu al ly tol d the m . W e rev ie w de no vo a Dis tri ctCo urt’s d eci si onwhet he r a Bra dy vi ol at io n oc cu rred . Uni te d Sta tes v. Bea sl ey , 72 F.3d15 18 , 15 25 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). A vi ol at io n o ccu rs when th e p ro se cu ti on supp res se s, wh ethe r orno t i n g oo d fa it h, m at eri al ev id en ce fa vo rab le to th e d efen da nt . Bra dy , 37 3 U.S. at87 , 83 S.Ct . at 11 96 -9 7. To est ab li sh a Bra dyvi ol at io n, the de fen da ntm us t s ho w th at : (1 ) th e Gov ern m en t p os se ss edfav or ab le ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng im pe ach m en t ev id en ce; (2 ) th e d efen da ntdi d n otpo ss es s the ev id en ce, an d h e co ul d n otob ta in ithi m se lf with a ny reaso nabl e d il ig en ce; (3) th e Gov ern m en t s up pr es se d t he ev id en ce; an d (4 ) ha d t he ev id en ce b eendi sc lo se d, a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty exi st s tha t the ou tc om e o f th e p ro ceed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha ns en , 26 2 F .3d12 17 , 12 34 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). If th e d efen da ntkn ew of th e in fo rm at io n o r ha d e qu al acce ss to it , th enth ere i s n o s up pr es si on is su e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Gr ig gs , 71 3 F .2d67 2, 6 74 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Pr ic e , 79 2 F .2d99 4, 9 98 13 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 13 of 17(1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) . Whe n c on si de rin g wh ethe r th e n on -d is cl os ur e o f ex cu lp at ory

in fo rm at io n v io la te d ade fen dant ’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts , “ th e fo cu s i s n otup on th e factof n on di sc lo su re, b utup on th e im pa ctof t he no nd is cl os ur e o n the jury’ s ve rd ic t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. K op it uk , 69 0 F .2d12 89 , 13 39 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). Hav in g e xa m in edth e rec or d, we m us t co nc lu de th atev enif the Gov ern m en t’s di sc lo su re was in su ffi ci en t, n o v io la ti on oc cu rredbe cau se San ch ez h adequa l acce ss to th e in fo rm at io n a t i ss ue : h e co ul d h av e co nt act edRo dr ig ue z an d C ed an o an d, d ep en di ng on whatth ey mig htsay, he co ul d h av e cal le d t he m as wi tn es se s. V. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io ns reg ard in g p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t de no vo be cau se th ey in vo lv e m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact . Uni te d St at es v. No ri ega , 11 7 F .3d12 06 , 12 18 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). W e subjec t al le ga ti on s of pro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t t o a“ two -p arttes t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ob re go n , 89 3 F.2 d 1 30 7, 1 31 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . The t es t re qu ire s u s t o a ss es s (1 ) whe th er the ch al le ng edst at em en ts were i m pr op er, an d (2 ) if

so , whet he r th ey

pre jud ic ia ll y affe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Id. W it h re sp ectto th e fi rs t p ro ng , we ha ve he ldth at“ [t]he so le pu rp os e o f cl os in g a rg um en t i s t o a ss is t the jury in an al y zi ng th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba il ey , 12 3 F .3d13 81 , 14 00 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The p ro se cu to r m ay no t “ ex ceedth e ev id en ce” dur in g 14 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 14 of 17cl os in g a rg um en t, b utm ay dra w reas on ab le co nc lu si on s fr om it . Id. Howev er, we reco gn iz e th at“ in th e h eatof a rg um en t, co un se l d o o ccas io na ll y m ak e rem ark s th atare n otjus ti fie d b y

th e te st im on y , andwhi chare, o r m ay be , pre jud ic ia l t o t he accu se d,” an d we m

us t d et erm in e th ei r pr ob ab le effe cton th e jury. Uni te d Sta tes v. Rod ri gu ez , 76 5 F .2d15 46 , 15 60 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . In ad di ti on , th e p ro se cu to r m ay res po ndto th e arg um en ts of d efen se co un se l. Uni te d St at es v. Sa rmi en to , 74 4 F .2d75 5, 7 65 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e is su es rai se d b y a de fen da ntinhi s cl os in g a rg um en t ar e “ fai r gam e fo r th e p ro se cu ti on on reb ut ta l.” Id. W it h re sp ectto th e se co ndpro ng , we hav e h el d t ha t “ [a] defe nd an t’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts are p reju di ci al ly affect edwhen a reas on ab le pro babi li ty aris es th at , bu t fo r th e rem ark s, the ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l wo ul d b e d iff eren t.” Uni te d St at es v. W

il so n , 14 9 F .3d12 98 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ta ti onan d a lt erat io n om it te d) .

“ [A] party

see ki ng to rai se a cl ai m

or i ss ue on ap pe al m

us t p la in ly and pr om in en tl y

so in di cat e. Oth erwi se , th e is su e—e ve n i f pr op erl y pre se rv edat tri al —wi ll be co ns id eredab an do ne d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. J erni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

15

Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 15 of 17San ch ez ar gu es th atth ree c omm en ts m ad e in th e p ro se cu to r’s reb ut ta l

arg um en t b efo re the jury im pr op erl y im pu gn edde fen se co un se l’s i nt eg rit y . W e are n otpe rs ua de d. Th e p ro se cu to r m erel y po in te d o utth atth e Co ns ti tu ti on tru st s juri es , no t the lawyers i nv ol ve d i n t he cas e, to de ci de th e d efen da nt ’s gu il t. Mo reo ve r, in refe rri ng to lawyers, the pro se cu to r in cl ud edhi m se lf. Th e se co nd rem arkSan ch ez ch al le ng es was aco m m en t the pro se cu to r m ad e in res po ns e to de fen se co un se l’s re pe at edatt ack s o n t he qu al ity of t he Gov ern m en t’s in ve st ig at io n. We hav e rea d t he rem arkan d c on cl ud e th atitwas i n d efen se of t he qu al it y of the in ve st ig at io n a ndno t an att ackon de fen se co un se l’s i nt eg rity . As to th e th irdco m

m en t, Sa nc he z’s ap pe ll at e b rie f m ak es no arg um en t as to why itwas im pr op er, s o S an ch ez h as ab an do ne d a ny chal le ng e to th e co m m en t. Infin e, we fin d n o b as is forco nc lu di ng th atth e ch al le ng edco m m en ts pre jud ic edSan ch ez’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . VI. Fi na ll y , we no te th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt’s wri tt enjud gm en t co nt ai ns a sc riv en er’s err orab ou t the st atut e und er wh ic h S an ch ez was co nv ic te d, i nd ic at in g th athe was c on vi ct edinCo un t 2 un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( a)(3 ) an d (f ), rathe r th anun de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8( a)(3 ) an d (f ). Ther efo re, a re m an d i s n eces sary for

16 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 16 of 17th e li m it edpu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng th e wri tt enjud ge m en t t o s o re fle ct . W e rem an d

to th e co urt fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f co rrec ti ng th e err or . AFFIRMED, an d R EMANDED with in st ru ct io ns .

17 Case: 11-15707 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Page: 17 of 17