11-3653-cr 

United States v. Williams 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER 

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,

2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.

WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON

ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 18th 4 day of September, two thousand and

5 twelve.

6

7 PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,

9 Circuit Judges,

JOHN GLEESON,* 10

11 District Judge. 

12

13 

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

15

16 Appellee,

17

18 v. 11-3653-cr

19

20 BRYANT WILLIAMS,

21

22 Defendant-Appellant.

23

24 

25

26 FOR APPELLANT: JAMES E. NEUMAN (David S. Greenfield, on

27 the brief), New York, NY.

28

29 FOR APPELLEES: STEVEN C. LEE, Assistant United States

30 Attorney (Jennifer G. Rodgers, Assistant

31 United States Attorney, on the brief),

* The Honorable John Gleeson, of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by

designation.
1 for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney

2 for the Southern District of New York,

3 New York, NY.

4

5 Appeal from the United States District Court for the

6 Southern District of New York (Jones, J.). 

7

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

9 AND DECREED that the judgment of United States District

10 Court for the Southern District of New York is AFFIRMED.

11 Defendant-Appellant Bryant Williams appeals from a

12 judgment of conviction entered on September 1, 2011, in the

13 United States District Court for the Southern District of

14 New York (Jones, J.) following a 10-day jury trial. 

15 Williams was convicted of engaging in a scheme to deprive

16 the United States of honest services under 18 U.S.C. §§

17 1341, 1346 and accepting bribes in violation of his official

18 duties as a military officer under 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(b)(2)(A)

19 and (C). The district court sentenced Williams principally

20 to 36 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised

21 release. Williams challenges trial rulings that (1) allowed

22 the government to admit evidence concerning wire-transfers

23 made by a third-party at Williams’s request, and (2)

24 excluded statements made by the government at a pretrial

25 conference that purportedly conflicted with arguments made

26 at trial concerning the wire transfers.

2
1 The district court did not abuse its “broad discretion”

2 in regard to these evidentiary rulings. United States v.

3 SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc., 195 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1999). 

4 First, evidence that Williams asked a third-party to wire

5 nearly $12,000 in cash from Iraq to Williams’s friend in the

6 United States was relevant to whether Williams was guilty of

7 accepting cash bribes from contractors in Iraq. See Fed. R.

8 Evid. 401. The district court did not err by concluding

9 that the evidence was “admissible as direct evidence” of the

10 charged crime—i.e., that Williams was receiving bribes. 

11 Appendix 83 (emphasis added).

12 Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion

13 in refusing to admit statements made by the government at a

14 pretrial conference concerning the wire transfers. We agree

15 with the district court that, considering the circumstances,

16 these statements were not admissions by a party opponent

17 under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). See, e.g., United

18 States v. Ford, 435 F.3d 204, 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing

19 United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 33 (2d Cir. 1984)).

20 Even if they were admissions, any error in precluding them

21 was harmless because the statements were not inconsistent

22 with the government’s statements at trial. 

23 

3
1 We have considered Williams’s remaining arguments and,

2 after a thorough review of the record, find them to be

3 without merit. 

4 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

5 court is hereby AFFIRMED. 

6 FOR THE COURT:

7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

8

9

10

11

12

13

4