FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 15, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1524 8 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 34 3- CR-J -3 2- HTS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us GINO VELE Z SCOTT, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( Ju ne 15, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN Aand B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

G ino V el ezS co tt ap pe al s vari ous iss ue s r el at ed to his c onvi ct ionf

or conspiracy

to poss ess with intent to di stribute five kilog ram s or m ore of coca ine, in v iol at ionof

21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( b) (1 )( A ) an d 84 6. W e ad dr es s e ac h is sue in tur n, an d a ffi rm

hi s co nv ic ti on . I. D ISCU SSION A. Ineffective assis tance of couns el Scott, r epresented by

new counsel on appeal, argues his trial counsel was ine ff ec tiv e, be ca

use ne ith er

of his atto rn ey s inve sti gate d th e ba ck gr ound of the G o v e rn men t ’s c o n f

i d e n t i a l i n f

o rman t . S c o t tc o n t e n d s atami n i mum, h i s at t o rn e ys at tr ia l sh oul d have inv es tig at ed F re ddy P en a’ s pr ev iou s c onvi ct ion s to de te rmine if his c re dib ili ty

c oul d have be enatta ck ed at tri al . A cc or din gly , S co tt as se rt s, he was de ni edhi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o e ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l.

“ Ge nerally , c laim s of ineffec tive assistance of counsel are not consid ered for the fir st tim e on direct appeal. ” U nited Sta tes v . T

yn dale , 209 F . 3d 1 292, 129 4 (1 1thCi r. 200 0) . H ow ev er , w e m ay c onsi de r anine ff

ec tiv e- as sis tanc e cl ai m

on dir ec t a ppe al , e ve n a

bse nt a pos t- tr ia l he ar ing , if

the re is suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce in the tri al reco rdreg ard in g the cla im . U nited Sta tes v . Ca m ac ho , 40 F.3d34 9, 3 55 n.6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) .3

Th er e i s n o ev i d en ce i nth e r ec o rdb ea ri n g o nth e mer i t s o f S co t t ’s al le gatio ns o f ine ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el . B ec au se the re is ins uf fi ci en t e v i d e n c e i nth e r e c o r dr e g ar d i n g S c o t t ’s i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t an c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m, we de cl in e to ad dr es s t hi s cl ai m . B. Continu ance Sc ott ne xt arg ue s th e G ove rnm en t sh oul d have dis cl ose d so one r than f ive day s before the tria l (1) the nam e of the paid confidential inform ant, P ena, (2) a de sc ri pti on o f his c ri m ina l hi sto ry , and ( 3) the nam es of the num er ous ca se s in wh i ch Pe n a h adb ee ni n v o l v eds o th atd ef en s e c o u n s el co u l di n v es t i g at e P en a’s ba ck gr ound . A cc or din gly , S co tt as se rt s, the tr ia l c ourt c om m itt ed r ev er sib le e rr or by failing to grant a continu ance so defense c ouns el could obt ain further in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g P en a. As an initial m atter, Scott states in his brief that, “ [a] lthou gh the trial court ru le d th at the re w as no B radyor G igl io vio latio n f or the late ne ss i n pr ovi din g scant inform ation [about Pena] five day s prior to trial, [ he] disagree[s] .” H e does not, however, actually

raise a claim under B radyv . M

ary lan d , 83 S . Ct . 119 4, 1196 –97 (1 963) ( statin g th e gove rnm en t i s ob lig at ed to pr oduc e ev ide nc e that i s m at er ia lly

f av or ab le to the de fe ndant, e ith er a s su bst an tiv e or

im pe ac hm en t evidence), or Giglio v. United States , 92 S . Ct . 763 , 766 ( 1972 ) (h old ing the4

“ de lib er at e de ce pti on o f a co urt and j ur or s by the pr es en tatio n of

kno w n f al se ev id en ce i s i nc om

pa ti bl e wit h” du e p ro ces s) , in th e in st an t ap pe al . See Fed. R. Ap p . P . 2 8 ( a ) ( 9 ) ( r e qu i r i n g ap p e l l an tt o s t a t e “c o n t e n t i o n s an dr e a s o n s f o r th e m, wit h c it at io ns to au th or it ie s an d p art s o f th e rec or d o n wh ic h t he ap pe ll an t re li es ”). Ac cordingly , the lim ited issu e before us on appeal is whether the district court erre d b y fai li ng to gra nta co nt in ua nc e. G en er al ly , w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of atr ia l c ont inu an ce f

or ab us e o f di sc ret io n. United States v. B owe , 22 1 F .3d11 83 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Inth is cas e, ho wev er, Sco ttdi d n otreque sta co nt in ua nc e in th e d is tri ctco urt. Acco rd in gl y , we rev ie w hi s ar gu m en t o nl y forpl ai n e rro r. See United States v. Clark, 27 4 F .3d13 25 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). U nde r pla in e rr or

r ev ie w , an a

ppe llate c ourt m ay

not c or re ct an e rr or the de fe ndant f

ai le d to r ai se in the dis tr ic t c ourt un le ss the re is “ (1 ) er ro r, ( 2) that i s plain, and (3) that af

fects substantial right s. I f all three conditio ns are m et, an ap pe llate c ourt m ay

the n e xe rc ise it s di sc re tio n to not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but

onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of j udicial proceedings.” U nited Sta tes v . Co tto n , 122 S. Ct. 1781 , 1785 (2002). (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) .5

Be ca use S co tt did

not r eque st a c ont inu an ce , it

w as not pla in e rr or

f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o f

ai l t o gr an t su chac ont inu an ce . S co tt ha s no t c ite d any auth or ity indicating that a district court is oblig ated to grant a continuance sua spon tewhen the governm ent fulfills its ob ligation s under B radyand G igl io . A cc or din gly , any er ro r that the dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e by not sua spon tegr an tin g ac ont inu an ce w as not error that wa s “plain,” beca

use such an error w as not “ obvi ous or clear under current law .” U

nited Sta tes v . Ca nde lar io , 24 0 F .3d13 00 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Furtherm ore, Scott has failed to dem onstrate how his sub stantial rights we re affe ct edby the co urt’s fa il ur e to gra nta co nt in ua nc e, see Co tto n , 122 S. Ct. at 1785 , a s he ha s no t e xpl ai ne d ho w , w iththe be ne fi t of a ddi tio na l t im e, he c oul d have im pe ac he d P en a’ s te sti m ony , nor ha s he ide nti fi ed

any inf orm at ionabout Pe nathat w oul d have c hange d th e out co m e of his tr ia l ha d he le ar

ne d th e inf orm at ionsoo ne r. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t pl ai nly e rr in fa ili ng t o grant a continuance sua spon te . C. D ue pro cess Sc ott ne xt arg ue s th at , dur ing arg um en t be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt r eg ar din g the a dm iss ibi lity

of S co tt’ s bank r ec or ds, the G ove rnm en t m isr ep re se nte d to the court that the m oney

Scott w ithdrew fr om

his bank o n June 18 , 2004 , w as given to J ose Augus tin e T am ay o, S co tt’ s c oc onsp ir at or . S co tt co nte nds thi s6

m isstatem ent im

plied he and his coconspirator wer e together when the certificates of deposit (CDs) w ere cashed, “ thus creating the false nexus between m onies withdrawn and tho se used for the purchase of nar cotics on October 21, 2004.” Sc ott a lso m ai nta ins the G ove rnm en t, at the he ar ing r eg ar din g hi s m oti on in lim ine , w ill fu lly

om itt ed the f ac t that on e CD bor e the nam e Jos e A dr ian T am ay o, w ho w as be lie ve d to be r el at ed to Jos e Augus tin e T am ay o, the c oc onsp ir at or and wit ne ss in th is cas e. Sc ott not es that P am

Y ea ge r, abank r ep re se ntativ e, late r te sti fi ed ( 1) Jos e Augustine Tam ay o did n ot have an account at the bank, and (2) Jose A drian T am ay o’ s nam e w as on o ne of the CD s c as he d by

S co tt. S co tt co nte nds the pur pose of thi s te sti m ony

w as to showthat Jo se Augus tin e T am ay o, the w itn es s in thi s c as e, did

not have a cc es s to larg e sum s of m one y , and the re fo re , S co tt m ust have given him

the funds to p urchase the drugs. S cott appears to im ply that, had the G ove rnm en t c lari fi ed that Jo se A dr ian T am ay o w as an a cc ount -h old er at F ir st St at e Bank and n am ed

on o ne of

the CD s, the c ourt c oul d have c onc lud ed thi s re lativ e of

c oc onsp ir at or

Jos e Augus tin e T am ay o gave him the f unds f or the tra ns act io n ra th er t ha n S co tt . Sc ott m ai nta ins by

sub m itt ing f

al se inf orm at ionand c re at ing thi s f al se im pr es sio n duri ng the he ar ing r eg ar din g hi s m oti on in l im ine , the G ove rnm en t7

vio late d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts unde r both B rady , 83 S . Ct . 119 4, and Alcorta v. Te xa s , 78 S . Ct . 103 , 105 ( 1957 ) (h old ing due pr oc es s is vio late d if apr ose cutor fa ils to co rr ec t t es tim ony

he kno w s to be f

al se ). A cc or din gly , he a sse rt s hi s en ti tl em en t t o ane w tri al . A lth oughS co tt ch al le nge d th e adm iss ionof his banki ng r ec or ds o n evidentiary

grounds , he did no t assert in the district court the prosecutor had en ga ge d i n m is co nduc t, d ep riv in g h im of h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts . Accor di ng ly, we rev ie w th is arg um en t fo r pl ai n e rro r. See U nited Sta tes v . A gui lla rd , 217 F . 3d 1319 , 132 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( re vie w ing se nte nc ing c ha lle nge f or pla in e rr or because the defe ndant had n ot raised in district court “ the specific issues she raises no w”). Ar ev ie wof

the tr an sc ri pt r eg ar din g S co tt’ s m oti on in l im inerevea ls that, at one poi nt, the pr ose cutor appare ntl y

m iss tate d th at , whe n th e CD s w er e ca she d, the f unds w er e giv ento “ Mr . T am ay o, ” Sc ott ’ s c oc onsp ir at or . S ubse que ntl y , the pr os ecu to r st at ed , “ fo urm on th s l at er Mr . Tam ay o [wa s] gi ve n, b y Mr. Sco tt. . . ap pr ox im at el y

$5 4,0 00 .” The p ro se cu to r di d n otde ta il th e o wne rs hi p o f th e CDs during th e hear ing. Scott, however, has not dem onstrated how his substantial rights were aff

ected by the prosecutor’ s m isstatem ent or failure to detail the CD owne rs hip , a s th er e is n o in dic at ionin the r ec or d th at e ith er the m iss tate m en t or8

fai lu re t o d et ai l was th e so le reas on th e d is tri ctco urt ad m it te d t he ev id en ce. Rathe r, the dis tr ic t c ourt l ist ed se ve ra l r ea sons f

or it s de ci sio n to a dm it the banki ng re co rd s , n o n e o f w h i ch i n cl u d edth e o wn er s h i p o f t h e C D o r t h e p ro s ec u t o r’s st at em en t re ga rd in g S co tt ’s withd rawal of f un ds . D. Irrelevance/Prejudice Sc ott ne xt arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in adm itt ing his banki ng r ec or ds because of the “ slim

showing bythe [G ] overnm ent regarding the nexus between [his] withdraw al four m onth s prior to the arre st of Tam ay o.” Scott contends th ere w as no e vid en ce to co nne ct his w ith dr aw al of

f unds in June 200 3 w ithf

unds se iz ed f ro m T am ay o inO ct obe r 2003 . S co tt as se rt s hi s banki ng e vid en ce w as , thu s, ir re le vant. H e furthe r co nte nds that, e ve n if the e vid en ce w as r el ev an t, it s pr obativ e va lue w as sub stanti al ly outw ei ghe d by

unf ai r pr ej udi ce to Sc ott , a s th e j ury convicted him

solely because the G overnm ent m ade it appear he had su ffi ci en t fu nd s t o p ur ch as e th e n arco ti cs . Whe na p arty p ro p er l y p re s erv es i t s cl ai m , we re v i ew th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s ru li ng on adm is si on of e vi de nc e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. United States v. J iminez , 224 F.3d 124 3, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000 ). W e w ill reverse an erroneous evidentiary ruling “ onlyif the re sultin g error wa s not harm less.” U nited Sta tes v . H

ands , 184 F.3 d 1 32 2, 1 32 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) , co rre cted by19 4 F .3d11 86 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ).9

T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n ina dm itt ing the banki ng re co rd s. F ir st, the banki ng r ec or ds w er e re le vant, be ca use the r ec or ds l ink ed

S co tt to the f unds use d to pur ch as e the c oc ai ne . A s th e G ove rnm en t no te d: ( 1) F ir st St at e Bank w as asm al l bank w ithbr an ch es in the V al dost a ar ea onl y ; ( 2) S co tt w ith dr ewove r $200 , 000 in c as h f ro m F ir st S tate Bank, and the f unds se iz ed

f ro m T am ay o w er e co nta ine d inF ir st S tate Bank e nve lop es ; and ( 3) S co tt w ith dr ewthe m one y in $100 and $ 50 b ill s, and the m one y se iz ed f ro m T am ay o w as a lso $10 0 an d$ 5 0 b i l l s . F u rt h erm o re , a l th o u g hth e f o u r- m o n thl ap s e b et we en Sc o t t ’s w ith dr aw al of

the f unds and the dr

ug transa ct ionm ay

have dimini she d th e pr obativ e va lue of

the r ec or ds, the pr obativ e va lue w as not sub stanti al ly outw ei ghe d by

unf ai r pr ej udi ce to Sc ott . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t abuse its dis cretion in adm itting the rec ords, and we aff irm as to this iss ue. E. Suffi ciency of the ev idence Finally , S cott contends the Governm ent failed to present cre dible evidence that a c onsp ir ac y

e xis te d. S co tt as se rt s “ havin g an in te re st i n am atte r doe s no t r ise t o th e l eg al d ef

i n i t i o no f c o n s p i ra cy.” He s tre s s es , a cc o rd i n g t o Ta m ayo ’s te sti m ony , non e of

the part ie s r ea ch ed

an a gr ee m en t r eg ar din g th e sa le of the cocaine on Oc tober 2, when Tam ay o initiallycontacted Scott re garding the sale, on O ct obe r 14, whe n T am ay o, Mi nol o, and P en a al le ge dly m et him in Je nni ngs,10

Fl or ida , or

by O ct obe r 21, a ft er

S co tt an d T am ay o r em ai ne d inc ont ac t r eg ar din g the pr opos ed

tr an sa ct ion . S co tt furthe r ar gue s he and T am ay o ha d abuy -s el l ar range m en t r athe r than apartne rs hip to dis tr ibute c oc ai ne . S co tt state s th at , according to Tam ay o’ s testim ony : (1) paid Gover nm ent inform ants approached T am ay o r eg ar din g th e sa le of the dr ugs; ( 2) T am ay o a ct ed

a s an a ge nt f

or the inform ants, inducing th ird parties to purchase the drugs, because he nee ded m one y ; and ( 3) T am ay o ne ve r re ac he d an a gr ee m en t w ithS co tt to p oss es s c oc ai ne wit h t he in te ntto di st rib ut e as ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t.

“ W e re vie wthe suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort a c onvi ct ionde nov o, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t, and draw ing all rea sonable inferences and cre dibil ity choices in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict.” United States v. R odrig uez , 218 F. 3d 12 43, 1244 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). T he district court’ s denial of a m otion for a j udgm ent of acquittal will be upheld if a re as ona ble tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d c onc lud e the e vid en ce e sta bli she s th e de fe ndant i s gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Id . T he j ur y is fr ee to ch oose be tw ee n or am ong the r ea sona

ble c onc lus ion s to be dr awn f ro m the e vid en ce pr es en te d duri ng tr ia l, and the c ourt m

ust a cc ep t the j ur

y ’ s r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s and c re dib ili ty de te rm in at io ns . United States v. Sanchez , 72 2 F .2d15 01 , 15 05 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ).11

T o su ppor t a c onsp ir ac y

c onvi ct ionund er

se ct ion846 , the gov er

nm en t m ust pr ove : “ (1 ) ana gr ee m en t be tw ee n th e de fe ndant and o ne or m or e pe rs ons, ( 2) the objec t of which is to do either an unlawful ac t or a law ful act by unlawful m eans.” See United States v. T

oler , 144 F . 3d 1 423, 142 6 ( 11th C ir . 1998 ). T he e xis te nc e of the c onsp ir ac y

and the de fe ndant’ s part ic ipatio n init m ay be e sta bli she d thro ugh ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Id . F or the c onsp ir ac y

to ex ist , an a gr ee m en t t o c om m it som e oth er

c ri m e be y ond the c ri m e co nst itute d by the a gr ee m en t i tse lf

m ust be m ad e. U nited Sta tes v . D ek

le , 165 F . 3d 8 26, 829 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . T hus, in a dr ug ca se , “ [w ] he re the buy er ’ s purp ose is m er el y to buy , and the se lle r’ s purp ose is m er el y to se ll, and n o pr ior

or c ont em por an eo us unde rs tandi ng e xis ts b etw ee n th e two bey ond th e sales agre em ent, no conspiracy has been shown.” United States v. Be asley , 2 F . 3d 1 551, 156 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 3) ( quot ing U nited Sta tes v . B urr ough s , 830 F.2d 157 4, 1581 (11th Cir. 1987 ). H owever , an agreem ent m ay be inferr ed when the evidence shows a continu ing relationsh ip that results in the repeated tra ns fer o f il le ga l d ru gs to th e p ur ch as er. U nited Sta tes v . B asc aro , 742 F . 2d 1 335, 13 59 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). In light of the evidence presented during the trial, sufficient evidence supp orts the jury ’ s conclusio n that Scott kno wingly and volu ntarily

j oined an ag re em en t t o po sse ss w iththe int en t t o di str ibute f ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of12

co ca ine , and the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing S co tt’ s m oti on f or aj udgm en t of acquittal. T estim ony

from Agents Jack L unsford and Mark Baughm an, P ena, an d T am ay o id en tif

ie d S co tt as the buy er

who w as f

undi ng T am ay o’ s tr an sa ct ion , in vo lv in g 1 0 k il og ram s o f co cai ne , with P en a an d M in ol o. Furtherm ore, Pena te stified he and Scott discuss ed the possi bilityof future tr an sa ct ion s, and S co tt tol d hi m he w oul d be w ill ing to pur ch as e dr ugs fr om P en a on a w ee kly ba sis be ca

use he sup pli ed

c oc ai ne to suf

fi ci en t c ust om er s to w ar

rant suc h f re que nt transa ct ion s. A ge nt L unsf or d te sti fi ed

that, a ft er

S co tt w as arr es te d, he to ldau th or it ie s h e was a “bi g g uy” inth e h ie rarc hy of dru g d is tri bu ti on . T am ay o te sti fi ed

he and S co tt ha d e nga ge d inm ult ipl e tr an sa ct ion s invol vin g th e sa le of dr ugs ove r a pe ri od o f y ears . L as tly , T am ay o in dic at ed that, a ft er

S co tt agreed to the transaction, S cott gave Tam ay o $54 ,000 with the understandin g they w oul d purc ha se 10 k ilo gr am s of c oc ai ne , pay ing up f

ro nt f or 3 ki log ram s and rece iving 7 kilog ram s on cons ignm ent. A ll of the foregoing testim ony indicates the re w as ac ont inu ing r el at ion shi p be tw ee n T am ay o and S co tt, a s w el l a s th e co nte m platio n of ac ont inu ing r el at ion shi p be tw ee n P en a an d S co tt. T he re fo re , the evidence dem onstrates the existence of a conspiracy agree m ent rather than an is ol at edbu y -s el l ag reem en t. B asc aro , 7 4 2 F. 2 dat1 3 5 9 . F i n al l y, Sc o t t ’s co nte nti on h e an d T am ay o ne ve r re ac he d an a gr ee m en t f ai ls, be ca use , a cc or din g to13

Ta mayo ’s t e s t i mo n y, S c o t tu l t i mat e l y a g r e e dt o th e tr an s a c t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y, suf fi ci en t e vid en ce sup ports S co tt’ s c onvi ct ion . II. C ONC LUS ION We d ec l i n e t o ad dre s s Sc o t t ’s i n ef fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce o f c o u n s el cl ai m . We co nc lud e the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fa ili ng t o gr an t a

c ont inu an ce , or

in ad m i t t i n g Sc o t t ’s b an kre co rd s . Ad d i t i o n al l y, su ff i ci en tev i d en ce s up p o rt s Sc o t t ’s co nvi ct ion . AFFIRMED.