11-3653-cr United States v. Williams **UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 
**SUMMARY ORDER R** **ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT .**  **C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A**  **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT**  **, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE**  **F EDERAL**  **A PPENDIX 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 .**  At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 18 thday of September, two thousand and 4 twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 Circuit Judges , 9 JOHN GLEESON, * 10 District Judge. 11 12 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 15 Appellee , 16 17 v. 11-3653-cr 18 19 BRYANT WILLIAMS, 20 21 Defendant-Appellant. 22 23 24 25 FOR APPELLANT: JAMES E. NEUMAN (David S. Greenfield, on 26 the brief ), New York, NY. 27 28 FOR APPELLEES: STEVEN C. LEE, Assistant United States 29 Attorney (Jennifer G. Rodgers, Assistant 30 United States Attorney, on the brief ), 31

* The Honorable John Gleeson, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney 1 for the Southern District of New York, 2 New York, NY. 3 4 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 5 Southern District of New York (Jones, J .). 6 7 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 8
**AND DECREED**that the judgment of United States District 9 Court for the Southern District of New York is **AFFIRMED**
. 10 Defendant-Appellant Bryant Williams appeals from a 11 judgment of conviction entered on September 1, 2011, in the 12 United States District Court for the Southern District of 13 New York (Jones, J .) following a 10-day jury trial. 14 Williams was convicted of engaging in a scheme to deprive 15 the United States of honest services under 18 U.S.C. §§ 16 1341, 1346 and accepting bribes in violation of his official 17 duties as a military officer under 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(b)(2)(A) 18 and (C). The district court sentenced Williams principally 19 to 36 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised 20 release. Williams challenges trial rulings that (1) allowed 21 the government to admit evidence concerning wire-transfers 22 made by a third-party at Williams’s request, and (2) 23 excluded statements made by the government at a pretrial 24 conference that purportedly conflicted with arguments made 25 at trial concerning the wire transfers. 26

2The district court did not abuse its “broad discretion” 1 in regard to these evidentiary rulings. United States v. 2 SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc. , 195 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1999). 3 First, evidence that Williams asked a third-party to wire 4 nearly $12,000 in cash from Iraq to Williams’s friend in the 5 United States was relevant to whether Williams was guilty of 6 accepting cash bribes from contractors in Iraq. See Fed. R. 7 Evid. 401. The district court did not err by concluding 8 that the evidence was “admissible as direct evidence ” of the 9 charged crime— i.e. , that Williams was receiving bribes. 10 Appendix 83 (emphasis added). 11 Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion 12 in refusing to admit statements made by the government at a 13 pretrial conference concerning the wire transfers. We agree 14 with the district court that, considering the circumstances, 15 these statements were not admissions by a party opponent 16 under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). See, e.g. , United 17 States v. Ford , 435 F.3d 204, 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing 18 United States v. McKeon , 738 F.2d 26, 33 (2d Cir. 1984)). 19 Even if they were admissions, any error in precluding them 20 was harmless because the statements were not inconsistent 21 with the government’s statements at trial. 22 23

3We have considered Williams’s remaining arguments and, 1 after a thorough review of the record, find them to be 2 without merit. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 4 court is hereby **AFFIRMED**
. 5
FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

4