The Honor able Rober t Allan Edg ar, U nited States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0210n.06 F iled: Marc h 21, 2007 No. 06-3029 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J OSEPH E. KENNEDY , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Be fore : COOK and McKEAGUE, Circ uit J udg es; and EDG AR, District J udg e. *
PER C UR I AM. J oseph E. Ke nnedy , proce eding pro se, a ppeals his conviction for conspirac y

to commit mail fra

ud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to commit mail fraud
and to d e fr a ud the Un ite d St a te s in

vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § § 3 71 and 13 41 , a nd su bs tanti ve ma il f r a u d in v io lati o no f

1 8 U
. S. C. § 1 3 4 1
. K e n n e dy r a is e s nu me r o u s c h a ll e n g e s to h is c o n v ic ti o n . We aff irm.
I . Ba ckg round
Kenne dy and his co-de fenda

nts, St even A . Ritchey

and Joseph W . Flicking er, e ng ag ed in a bo g us c he c k s c hem e to de fr a ud the I nte rn a l Re ve nu e Se rv ic e a nd ind ivi du a l f

ina nc ia l c lie nts . Kenne dy persua ded his investm en t cl i ents to pay their fe dera l tax es with counter feit che cks heNo. 06-3029

United States v. Kenne dy

- 2 - su pp lie d th a t w e re dr awn

on a fi c tit iou s Euro pe an ba nk . K e nn e dy

a lso a dv ise d F lic kin g e r t o p ay his
c lie nts ’ fe de ra l taxe s in the same mann e r. Ke nn e dy wa s c on vic te d a

nd se nte nc e d to 49 mon ths in prison. He now a

ppeals.
I I . Due Proc ess and the Rig ht to a Unanimous J ury Ver dict
Ke n n ed y fi rs tcl ai m s t h at h e wa s d en i ed d u e pr o ce s s b ec au s e a ju ro r a l l ege d l y s l ep tt h ro u gh the re adingof the jury

instructions, and the cour t did nothing to rouse h i m . Al though the g overnme nt responds that Ke nnedy did not raise thi s issue below, he did file a post-ver dict motion, labeled “ Motion to R enew Rule 29 Moti o n , ” wh ich complained of the juror’ s alleg ed slumber. Kenne dy attache d an aff

idavit to his post-ve rdict motion and his a ppellate br ief in which se vera l trial attendee s swore that J uror Numbe r 7 slept throug h the j ury instructions. The re cord shows that the district court ente red judg ment ag ainst and sentenc ed Kenne dy without ruling on his motion. W hen a district cour

t fails to rule on a c laim, we usually rema nd for c onsideration below. Dualite Sales & Serv., I nc. v. M oran Foods, Inc ., 19 4 F. Ap p’ x 284 , 2 91 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) . In s ome c ir c ums tanc e s, pa rt ic ula rl y wh e n a c la im r a ise s an is su e that “ is n arrow and sp e c if ic , a nd the [dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ] implicit determination clear bey ond any

doubt, we may

y et re view to avoid the expensive alter native
o f r e ma n d f o r a p r a c ti c a ll y

a s s u r e d pro forma express determination conf orming to that one
nece ssarily

implicit i n the judg ment.” Id . (interna l quotation omit ted).No. 06-3029

United States v. Kenne dy

- 3 - Be cause Kenne dy

did not object to the alleg ed juror misconduc t as it happene d, only bring ing it to the dist rict cour

t’s attention a week after the g uilty verdic t, we re view for

plain err or. United States v. Critton , 43 F.3d 1089, 1094 ( 6th Cir. 1995). We find none.
Kenne dy ’s only

support for his conte ntion is t he af fidavit discussed above . Even if the jur or slept throug h the jury

instructions, Kennedy

fails to show, or even a lleg e, that such be havior “ had a pre judicial eff

ect on his defense .” Un ite d S tates v . S he rri ll , 388 F.3d 535, 537- 38 (6th Cir. 2004); U n it e d S ta te s v . O lano , 6 2 F.3d 1180, 1188 ( 9th Cir. 1995). Additionally , the jurors re ceive d a written copy

of the instructions to revie w duringdeliberations, whic h cure d any prejudice Kenne dy may have suf fer ed. Cf. Olano , 62 F.3d at 1189.

I I I
. J u ry I n s t ru ct i o nC h al l en ge Next, Kennedy

claims the district court e rre d by not instructing the jur

y that co-de fenda

nt Ritchey had died be fore trial and Ke nnedy could not be convicted of conspiring with him. We find this arg ument unsupported by any leg al authority and mer itless. Under fe dera l conspirac y law, eve n

“ if c ha rg e s are ne ve r b ro ug ht a g a ins t ot he r a lle g e d c oc on sp ir a tor s, if c ha rg e s are dis mis se d a g a ins t all other coconspirators, or if a coconspirator has not y et been tried, di smissal of charg es ag ainst the
rema ining c onspirator is not require d.” United States v. Sachs , 801 F.2d 839, 845 ( 6th Cir. 1986).
I V. Admissibili ty

of F lickinge r’s Te stimonyNo. 06-3029

United States v. Kenne dy

- 4 - Kenne dy al s o co n t ends t hat the district cour t errone ously

admitted the testimony

of codefe ndant Fl i ck i n ger , who testified about his involvement in the bogus chec k scheme . Kenne dy maintains that the common law as it exis ted in 1791 prohibited such testimony from an inter ested pa rt y wi th a c ri min a l c on vic tio n a

nd tha t any late r- de ve lop e d r

ule pe rm itt ingsu c h tes ti mo ny is unconstitutional. Given Congr ess’s plena ry authority over the promulg ation of evide ntiary rules for the fe dera l courts, we vie w this argument as fr ivolous and decline to a ddress it.
V. Motion for a B ill of Particulars
Kenne dy also complains abo u t t h e district court’s de nial of his motion for a bill of particula rs. To succe ed in his challeng e, “the defe ndant must show not only that the cour

t abused its discretion, but that [ he] actually suffe red sur

pri se or other

prejudice at trial.” United States v. Crayton , 357 F.3d 560, 568 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (interna l quotation omit ted).
Aside fr om a vague ref

ere nce to a denia l of due proc ess, Kenne dy fails to show or alleg e any surprise or

other prejudice at trial resulting from the denial of his motion. Nor does he assert that the indictment is so vag ue that a b i l l o f particula rs is nece ssary

to protect him from subseque nt prosec ution for the same crimes. The district court did not abuse its discre tion by denying Kenne dy ’s motion.
VI I . Constructive Amendment of the I ndictmentNo. 06-3029

United States v. Kenne dy

- 5 - Kenne dy next claims t hat the g overnme nt constructively amende d the in dictment by intro d u ci n g evidenc e of unc harg ed conduc t. But “no c onstructive ame ndment arises f rom the admission of acts not charg ed in the i ndictment when the court’s instructions to the jury prec lude the possibili ty

that the def

endant was convicted on those acts.” United States v. Apodac a , 843 F.2d 421, 42 8 ( 10 th C ir . 1 98 8)
. Th e c ourt he re tw ic e g a ve su c h lim iti ng ins tr uc tio ns , bo th wh e n the oth e r- a c ts
e vid e nc e wa s in tr od

uc e d and a t the c on c lus ion of tr ia l. T he se ins tr uc tio ns e lim inate d th e po ssi bil ity that Kenne dy

was c onvicted of of

fense s other than those c harg ed in the indictment.
VI I I . “Rea doption” of all Pretria l Motions
F ina lly , w ith ou t c iti ng any a uth or ity , Ke nn e dy ’s br ie f “ re a do pt[s ] an d r e inc or po ra t[e s]” a ll of his pretria l motions . “The incorporation by ref ere nce of arguments made at va

rious stag es of the proce eding in the district court does not comply with the Fe dera l Rules of

Appellate Proc edure ,” and we have ex plicitly disallowed t his practice
. Northland Ins. Co. v. Stewart Titl e Guar. Co. , 327 F.3d 44 8, 45 2 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 3) (c iti ngF e d. R. A pp . P. 28 (a )( 9) ); s e e als o S n yd er v. United States , 2 3 F. App’x 212, 213 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Sny der’ s attempt to mere ly incorporate hi s district court cla ims by ref ere nce doe s not serve a s an appe llate ar g ument.”). We deem these additional arguments forfe ited. Northland , 327 F.3d at 452-53 (citation omitted).
I X. Conclusion
F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.