[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 24 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cr-2 09 99 -J AL-4
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us FRANKLIN DURAN, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st9, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Fran kl in Dura n app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r a n ew Case: 12-10248 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 1 of 7tri al in whi ch he all eg edth atth e g ov ern m en t p ro ffer edfal se tes ti m on y fro m it s ke y witne ss at t ria l, i n v io la ti on of Gig li o v . Uni te d Sta tes , 40 5 U.S. 1 50 (19 72 ). Afte r a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d, we af

firm . Dur anan d fo urot he rs were ch arg edwith c on sp iri ng to act , andact in g, as ag en ts of Ve ne zu el a in th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 3 71 an d 9 51
res pe ct iv el y . Duran was c on vi ct edin 20 08 an d s en te nc edto forty-eig htm on th s’ im pr is on m en t. His co nv ic ti onwas a ffi rm edon di rectap pe al
. Se e Uni te d Sta tes

1 v. Dur an , 59 6 F .3d12 83 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). InOcto be r 20 11 , Dura n fi le d am ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 3, al le gi ng a Gig li o erro r. Acco rd in g t o t he m ot io n, Du ran 2 ha d d is co ve redth atCarl os Kauf fm an n, h is form er b us in es s p artne r an d aco co ns pi rat orwho tes ti fie d a ga in sthi m , hadfil edanap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m be fo re tri al , andth atth e g ov ern m en t kne w of t he ap pl ic at io n andfai le d t o c orrect Kau ffm an n’s t ria l t es ti m on y to th e co nt rary. Sp eci fic al ly, Kau ffm an n t es ti fie d a t tri al th at , as p artof h is pl ea ag reem en t, the go ve rn m en t h adpro m is edth at Kau ffm an n a ndhi s fa m il y wou ldno t b e d ep orte d t o Ven ezu el a aft er Kau ffm an n se rv edhi s p ris on sen te nc e, bu t tha t i ns te adhe wou ldbe de po rte d t o a ny oth er A full rec itation of the evidenc e at trial is prese nted in our prior o p i n ion and we do not 1 rec ount them here except as re levant to the motion for a ne w trial. Dura n’s new trial motion is timely beca use it was filed within three year s of his conviction. 2 Fe d. R. Crim. P . 33(b)( 1). 2

Case: 12-10248 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 2 of 7co un try tha t wo ul d a ccep t h im . The p le a ag reem en t m ad e n o m en ti on of

Kau ffm an n s eek in g a sylum in th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d Kau ffm an n t es ti fie d t ha t n o ot he r pr om is es ha d b een m ad e in ex ch an ge forhi s t es ti m on y . ButKauf fm andi d, 3 in fact , app ly for as y lu m

in th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d a fte r Dur an ’s tri al was o ve r, th e pr os ecu to rs in Duran’s ca se supp orte d Kau ffm an n’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n. Alo ng with h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, Duran fil eda di sc ov ery m ot io n, reque st in g t ha t the go ve rn m en t p ro du ce Kau ffm an n’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, t he pr os ecu to rs ’ fil es co nc ern in g Kau ffm an n’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, an d a ny co m m un ic at io ns be twee n t he pro se cu to rs , th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y , an d U.S. Imm ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t o ffi ci al s re ga rd in g Kau ffm an n’s ap pl ic at io n. The di stric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e p art ie s t o s ub m itaffi da vi ts rel at edto

Kauf fmann t estified to various kickbac k scheme s he and Dura n eng ag ed in during their 3 business dealing s with the Vene zuelan g overnme nt. On cross-e x amination, defe nse counsel asked Kauf fmann, “And ther e i s a p ro v ision in your pl ea agree ment . . that calls for the Government to rec ommend that you would not be deporte d from the United States. Correc t? ” The g overn m ent objected, asser

ting that the question misstated the terms of t h e plea agree ment. Def ense counsel corr ecte d the question and then asked Kauf fmann if, based on this deal, he was fre e to say whateve r he wanted about t h e Vene zuelan Gover nment. Kauf

fmann replied that this was corr ect. In his motion for a new trial, Dura n contends that the g overnme nt’s objection enable d Kauf fmann’s false testimony to stand and, had the g overnme nt not interrupted, c ounsel would have shown the fa lsity of Kauf fmann’s testimony
. But Dura n is mistaken beca

use counsel’s question actua lly misstated the terms of the plea agree m en t . Thus, the g overnme nt’s objection did nothing to allow the alleg ed perjury
.

3

Case: 12-10248 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 3 of 7Dur an ’s all eg at io ns . Duran subm it te d an a ffi da vi t fr om th e imm ig rat io n a tt orne y who rep res en te d h im

inhi s d ep orta ti on pro ceed in gs aft er h is co nv ic ti on . The 4 affi da vi t ex pl ai ne d t ha t Kau ffm an n c ou ldha ve be enm ot iv at edto tes ti fy forth e go ve rn m en t atDura n’s t ria l t o s up po rt h is asylu m ap pl ic at io n. 5 The go ve rn m en t s ub m it te d a ffi da vi ts fro m th e p ro se cu to rs , Kauf

fm an n’s at to rn ey s, an d t he FBI ag en ts in vo lv edin th e cas e. The p ro se cu to rs an d t he FBI ag en ts co nf

irmed th atth ey

ha d n o kno wled ge of Kauf fm an n’s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n atth e ti m e o f tr ia l. The pro se cu to rs als o s ta te d t ha t the re was no ag reem en t wi th Kau ffm an n o th er than the pl ea ag reem en t. Kau ffm an n’s at to rn ey s s ta te d t ha t the y ha d n otin fo rm edth e p ro se cu to rs or F BI ag en ts th atKauf fm an n h ad , or p la nn edto , fil e anasylum

ap pl ic at io n. The di stric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, fi nd in g t ha t the re was no ev id en ce Kau ffm an n’s t es ti m on y was fa ls e an d t ha t Du ranha d n otm ethi s bu rd ento sh ow an y Gig li o vi ol at io n. Th e co urt al so no te d tha t, ev enif t he

Dura n submitted a second aff

idavit from another immigra tion attorney involved in his case . 4 This affidavit did not address Kauf fmann’s te stimony

or asy lum application. Acc ording to the immigration attorney ’s af fi d avit , the merits of Kauf fmann’s asylum 5 application involved Kauf fmann’s fea

r of the Vene zuelan g overnme nt, which was established and supported by his testimony at Dura n’s trial. Providing support for his asylum application would have motivated Kauf

fmann to lie at Duran’s trial. The im migr at ion attorney also stated that Kauffman would have been ineligible for admission to the United States beca use he had committed fra

ud when he enter ed the United States using false documents. Thus, Kauf fmann’s only aven u e t o obtain residenc y was a waiver of inadmissibil ity from the g overnme nt, g iving him an additional motive to lie. 4

Case: 12-10248 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 4 of 7te st im on y

ha d b een fal se , any erro r was ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t i n li gh t o f th e o ve rwh el m in g e vi de nc e an d re co rd in gs of Du ran ’s ownco nv ers at io ns adm it te d a t tria l. On ap pe al , Dura n a rg ue s t ha t the in fo rm at io n abo utKauf fm an n’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n wo ul d h av e subs ta nt ia ll y im pe ach edKauf

fm an n’s cr ed ib il ity , andth at th e g ov ern m en t’s af

fid av it s al on e were i ns uf

fic ie ntto est ab li shth atth e pr os ecu to rs an d i nv es ti ga to rs in vo lv edinDura n’s ca se lac ke d kno wled ge of Kau ffm an n’s ap pl ic at io n. He as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e al lo wed di sc ov ery an d c on du ct edanev id en ti ary he ari ng . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Is aa c Ma rq ue z , 59 4 F .3d85 5, 8 59 -6 0 (1 1t h C ir. 20 10 ). Und er Ru le 33 , a “ co urt m ay va cat e an y

jud gm en t an d g ran t a n ew tr ia l i f th e in te res t o f jus ti ce s o re qu ire s.” Fe d.R .Cri m .P. 33 (a). Whenth e res ol ut io n o f a
m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l i s cl ear, t he di st ric t co urt i s n otrequi redto ho ldan ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Uni te d Sta tes v. J erni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 89 (11 th Cir
. 20 03 ). “ [T]he acu m enga in edby a tria l ju dg e o ve r th e co ur se of t he pro ceed in gs ”
m ak es th e sa m e co urt “ well qu al ifi ed ” to rul e o n t he m ot io n wi th ou t h ol di ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Uni te d Sta tes v. S ch le i , 12 2 F .3d94 4, 9 94 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns m ark s o m it te d) . W e h av e d ecl in edto ord er d is co ve ry ba se d

5 Case: 12-10248 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 5 of 7up on m ere s pe cu la ti on as t o wh ethe r m at eri al wou ldco nt ai n e xc ul pa to ry ev id en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ar ia s-Iz qu ie rdo , 44 9 F .3d11 68 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A Gig li o erro r oc cu rs when un di sc lo se d e vi de nc e d em on st rat es th atth e pr os ecu ti on us edpe rjure d t es ti m on y an d t ha t the pro se cu ti on kn ew, orsh ou ldha ve kn own , of the pe rjury. Ford v . Hal l , 54 6 F .3d13 26 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). To pr ev ai l o n am ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l cl ai m ba se d o n a Gig li o cla im , th e d efen da nt

“ m us t es tabl is h t ha t the pro se cu to r ‘kno win gl y us edpe rjure d t es ti m on y , or fa il ed to co rrec t wh athe subs eque nt ly learn edwas fa ls e te st im on y ,’ an d t ha t the fal se ho odwas m at eri al .” To mpkin s v. Mo or e , 19 3 F .3d13 27 , 13 39 (11 th Cir
. 19 99 ). Forth e p ur

po se s o f a Gig li o cla im , “ th e fal se ho odis de em edto be m at eri al if t he re i s an y

reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co uld ha ve affe ct ed th e jud gm en t o f th e jury.” Id
. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. At i ss ue he re i s wh ethe r th e g ov ern m en t kne w, or s ho ul d h av e kno wn, o f Kau ffm an n’s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n a t tria l an d fa il edto di sc lo se it . Duranco nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto di sc lo se th is in fo rm at io n, wh ic h was m at eri al be cau se itwou ldhave sh own th e jury tha t Kau ffm an n h ada m ot iv e to fab ric at e h is te st im on y ag ai ns t Du ran . Andbe cau se Kauf fm an n’s t es ti m on y

was t he “ lynchpi n” of th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se , Dura n a rg ue s, the fai lu re t o d is cl os e th e g ov ern m en t’s
supp ort fo r Kau ffm an n’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n was no t h arm le ss .

6 Case: 12-10248 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 6 of 7W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly den ie d t he m ot io n fo r a n ew

tri al be cau se Dura n h as no t s ho wn t ha t the go ve rn m en t kno win gl y us ed , or fa il ed to co rrec t, fa ls e te st im on y . Non e o f Kau ffm an n’s t es ti m on y at t ria l re ga rd in g h is pl ea ag reem en t was fal se or u ns up po rte d b y th e ag reem en t. Fu rth er, the go ve rn m en t’s af

fid av it s an d d ecl arat io ns subm it te d i n re sp on se to th e m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al de m on st rat edth atth e p ro se cu to rs were u na ware o f Kau ffm an n’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n a t the ti m e o f Dur an ’s tri al . Duran ha s n otoff eredany pro of th at
su gg es ts ot he rwis e, an d Du ran ha s g iv enth is co urt n o re as on to th in k t he y sh ou ld ha ve kn own ab ou t the ap pl ic at io n. Be cau se th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e pr os ecu to rs di d n otkn ow ab ou t Kau ffm an n’s ap pl ic at io n, Du ran ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t a Gig li o vi ol at io n o ccurred . Add it io na ll y , Dura n h as off eredon ly sp ecu la ti on ab ou t p os si bl e ex cu lp at ory ev id en ce. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt, wh ic h ha d p res id edov er Du ran ’s tri al , pro pe rly den ie d h is ne w tri al m ot io n wi th ou t a
ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d d is co ve ry . Se e Ari as -Iz qu ie rdo , 44 9 F .3dat 1 18 9; Sc hl ei , 12 2 F .3dat 9 94
. AFFIRMED
.

7 Case: 12-10248 Date Filed: 08/09/2012 Page: 7 of 7