NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNI TED STATES COU R T O F APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRC UIT

__ _______ __

No. 1 9

- 3 6 9 4

__________

C H R I S T O P H E R R

A D

, A p p e l l a n t

v.

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

__ __ _ __ __ ____ _ ____ ______

________

____

O n Ap pea l from the Un i t ed S tat es District Cour t

for the District o f N e w J e r s e y (D .C. C i v i l Ac tion No. 3

- 1 5

- c v

- 0 7 7 4 0 )

D i s t r i c t Judge: Honorab l e A n n e E

. T h o m p s o n

__________

_ ___ _ _ _______ __ __ _________

Submitte d Pursu a n t to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a )

F e b r u a r y 1 7

, 2 0 2 1

B ef ore: G R E E N A W A Y

, J r

. , K R A U S E

, a n d B I B A S

, Circu it Judg es

(O pin ion filed : February 19, 2021 )

________

___

OPIN ION *

_ ____ _ _ ____

PE R CURIAM

C h r i s t o p h e r R a d a p p e a l s f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n u n d e r

2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 5

. W e w i l l a f f i r m

.

* Th is d isp o s i ti on is no t an o pini on o f th e fu l l C o ur t a n d p ur s u a nt t o I. O.P . 5

. 7 doe s n ot2 I

.

In 2011, Rad was indicted on f ederal charges relatin g t o his role in the use of spam

emails as part of a “pump and dump” stock price manip ulation scheme. Rad w a s the

m iddleman between the masterminds of the scheme and the personnel w ho executed it

through email spamming. The supersed ing indi ctment charge d Rad with nine counts.

Count One charged him with conspir acy to comm it: (1) securities fra ud in violation of 15

U.S .C. §§ 78j(b) an d 78ff; (2) “false header spamming” in violation o f 18 U.S.C.

§ 1037(a)(3); and (3) “false registratio n spammi ng” in violat i on of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1037(a)(4). Co unts Two through Four wer e substanti ve charges of false re gistration

spamming. Cou nt Five was a ch arge of conspiring to commit “unauthorized access

spamming” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1037(a)(1), an d Counts Six through N ine were

substantive charges of u nauthorized access spammi ng.

T h e e v i d e n c e against R a d a t t r i a l i n c l u d e d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f J a m e s B r a g g

, w h o

t e s t i f i e d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e s p a m m i n g a s p e c t o f C o u n t O n e a n d t h e s ub s t a n t i v e f a l s e

r e g i s t r a t i o n c o u n t s a t C o u n t s T w o t h r o u g h F o u r

. B r a g g t e s t i f i e d g e n e r a l l y t h a t R a d h i r e d

h i m t o s e n d t h e s p a m e m a i l s a t i s s u e

, t h a t B r a g g d i d s o b y s e n d i n g m a s s e m a i l s w i t h f a l s e

h e a d e r i n f

o r m a t i o n a n d f

r o m f a l s e l y r e g i s t e r e d a c c o u n t s

, a n d t h a t R a d k n e w a s m u c h

.

B r a g g ’ s t e s t i m o n y w a s c o r r o b o r a t e d i n p a r t b y n u m e r o u s t r a n s c r i p t s o f S ky p e c h a t s

co nst i t ut e b i n din g pre c e d e nt

.3

b e t w e e n R a d a n d B r a g g

, i n w h i c h t h e y d i s c u s s e d t h e e m a i l c a m p a i g n s

, a s w e l l a s t e s t

e m a i l s t h a t B r a g g s e n t t o R a d c o n t a i n i n g f a l s e h e a d e r i n f

o r m a t i o n

.

O n t h e b a s i s o f t h i s a n d o t h e r e v i d e n c e

, a j u r y f o u n d R a d guilty of Counts One as

to spamming and o f Counts Five thro ugh Nine

. T h e j u r y f o u n d R a d n ot guilty of C o u n t s

T w o t h r o u g h F o u r . The Dist rict Co urt sentenced R ad to 71 months in prison. W e

affirmed. See United States v. Rad , 559 F. App’x 1 48 (3d C i r. 2014).

R a d l a t e r c h a l l e n g e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n s b y f i l i n g a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n

. I n t h a t m o t i o n

,

R a d r a i s e d s e v e r a l c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g t h e w i t n e s s B r a g g a s w e l l a s o t h e r c l a i m s t h a t a r e n o t

p r e s e n t l y r e l e v a n t

. B r a g g ’ s s p a m m i n g a c t i v i t i e s h a d s u b j e c t e d h i m t o f

e d e r a l c r i m i n a l

c h a r g e s o f h i s o w n

. A t t h e t i m e o f R a d ’ s t r i a l

, B r a g g ( 1 ) h a d p l e a d e d g u i l t y a n d b e e n

s e n t e n c e d i n t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i c h i g a n

, a n d ( 2 ) h a d p l e a d e d g u i l t y a n d w a s

a w a i t i n g s e n t e n c i n g i n t h e D i s t r i c t o f N e w J e r s e y

. R a d a r g u e d t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t

, i n

v i o l a t i o n o f Brady v. Maryland , 3 73 U.S. 83 (1 963)

, f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e m a t e r i a l s f r o m

B r a g g ’ s M i c h i g a n c a s e t h a t R a d c o u l d h a v e u s e d t o f u r t h e r i m p e a c h h i s c r e d i b i l i t y

. R a d

a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h o s e m a t e r i a l s a n d o t h e r s s h o w e d t h a t B r a g g l i e d a b o u t v a r i o u s p o i n t s a t

t r i a l a n d t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t

, i n v i o l a t i o n o f Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150

(1972)

, a n d N a p u e v

. I l l i n o i s

, 360 U.S. 264 ( 1 9 5 9 )

, f a i l e d t o c o r r e c t B r a g g ’ s t e s t i m o n y

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e s e c l a i m s o n t h e m e r i t s b u t s c h e d u l e d a h e a r i n g o n

o n e o f R a d ’ s o t h e r c l a i m s a n d l a t e r d e n i e d t h a t c l a i m a s w e l l

. R a d t h e n a p p e a l e d

, a n d w e

i s s u e d a c e r t i f

i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y ( “ C O A ” ) l i m i t e d t o h i s B r a d y a n d N a p u e c l a i m s4

r e g a r d i n g B r a g g

. 1 W i t h o u r C O A g r a n t

, w e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § § 1 2 9 1

a n d 2 2 5 3 ( a )

. O u r r e v i e w i s p l e n a r y b e c a u s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t h o l d a h e a r i n g o n

th e s e c l a i m s

. S e e C o r d a r o v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 9 3 3 F

. 3 d 2 3 2

, 2 4 1 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 9 )

.

I I

.

H a v i n g c a r e f

u l l y r e v i e w e d t h e r e c o r d a n d t h e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m

. W e

f o c u s o n R a d ’ s s t r o n g e s t c l a i m

, b u t o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f m a t e r i a l i t y b e l o w e f f e c t i v e l y

r e s o l v e s R a d ’ s o t h e r c l a i m s a s w e l l

.

B r a g g t e s t i f

i e d a t t r i a l t h a t h e a n d R a d w o r k e d t o g e t h e r o n t h e s c h e m e a t i s s u e h e r e

a n d t h a t

, t o w a r d t h a t e n d

, h e s e n t n u m e r o u s s p a m e m a i l s o n R a d ’ s b e h a l f

. A t B r a g g ’ s

M i c h i g a n s e n t e n c i n g

, h o w e v e r

, B r a g g s t a t e d 2 t h a t h e d i d n o t w o r k w i t h s o m e o n e t o

1 Our order read in r elev ant pa rt:

Appellant’s request fo r a COA i s granted on his claims regarding Ja mes

Bragg that: (1) t he Government violate d Brady . . . by failing to disclose

evidence relat ing to Bragg’s Michi gan case; a nd (2 ) the Government

violat ed Gig lio . . . and Na pue

. . . by knowingly presenting o r failing t o

correct Bragg’ s allegedly false or misleading testimony

. This COA

in cludes the issue (to the extent tha t a COA might be requir e d on it)

whether th e District Cou rt erred in denying appel lant’s requests for Br ady

related discovery regarding Bra gg

. This C OA does not, how ever, include

any cl aim based on the test imo ny of FBI A gent La urie Allen. As t o that

clai m and all of appellant’ s o the r claims, incl uding appel lan t’ s claims of

ineff ective assis tance of counsel , ap pellant’s request for a COA is de nied.

2 We use the word “ state d ” rather than “ tes tified ” b ecause t he transcript of Bragg ’ s

Michigan sentencing does not r eflect whether h e was placed under oath. Se e U nit ed

St at es v. Ward , 732 F.3d 175, 182 (3d Cir. 201 3) (noting that “ [t]he contemporary

practice of swe aring or not sw earing defenda nts b efore a R ule 32 a ll ocution va ries by

distr ict and by judge ” ). Our decision, howe ver, do es not turn on that point.5

w h o m B r a g g r e f

e r r e d a s “ h i m ” a n d d i d n o t s e n d e m a i l s o n t h a t p e r s o n ’ s b e h a l f

. T h e

r e l e v a n t s t a t e m e n t s a r e i n t h e m a r g i n

. 3 R a d c l a i m s t h a t B r a g g ’ s re f e r e n ce to “ h i m ” wa s t o

R a d

. R a d f

u r t h e r c l a i m s t h at h e c o u l d h a v e u s e d t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s t o i m p e a c h B r a g g ’ s

t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l b u t t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t w i t h h e l d t h e m i n v i o l a t i o n o f B r a d y

. A B r a d y

v i o l a t i o n o c c u r s w h e n ( 1 ) a p r o s e c u t o r s u p p r e s s e s e v i d e n c e t h a t i s b o t h ( 2 ) f a v o r a b l e t o

t h e a c c u s e d a n d ( 3 ) m a t e r i a l t o t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e t r i a l

. S e e D e n n i s v

. S e c ’ y

, P a

. D e p ’ t

o f C o r r

. , 8 3 4 F

. 3 d 2 6 3

, 2 8 4

- 8 5 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 6 ) ( e n b a n c )

.

The Distric t Court rejected this claim on the ground that, given the number of

conspirators in both the Michigan and the New Jersey cases, Bragg’s reference to “him”

was too vague to be understood as a reference to Rad. But even if we were to accept

Rad’s arguments that this reference was to Rad or at least could have been used by him to

further impeach Bragg and that it wa s suppressed by the Government, Bragg’s reference

3 A t h is Michigan sentencing, B r a g g s t a t e d :

I talked to them u

p until 2008, but I didn ’ t do wo r k

. I technically neve r

sent spa m e

- mail for h i m but he did talk to me and I, in m y chat l o gs I

actu ally told him multiple times that I didn ’ t want to work with him , h is

group, because the guy he was using was breaking the law; he was hacking

and things like t hat. That ’ s said multiple t i mes in the logs. But he did se nd

me money. He did send m e $20,000 that I can recall, but $10,000 o f it was

taken back, $10,000 I did k eep. B u t othe r than that, I really actually never,

I n e v e r p r o c e e d e d t o s e n d e

- m a i l f o r h i m

.

( S u p p

. A p p ’ x a t 1 5 5 8

. )6

to “him” 4 is not dispositive of this claim because it was not material. E v i d e n c e i s

m a t e r i a l f o r B r a d y p u r

p o s e s i f t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t i t s d i s c l o s u r e w o u l d

h a v e p r o d u c e d a d i f

f e r e n t re s u l t

. S e e i d

. a t 2 8 5

. R a d a r g u e s i n c o n c l u s o r y f a s h i o n t h a t

t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s “ e n t i r e c a s e ” h i n g e d o n B r a g g ’ s t e s t i m o n y

, b u t h e h a s n o t a d d r e s s e d

m u c h o f t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t h i m a n d h e u l t i m a t e l y h a s n o t m a d e t h i s s h o w i n g

.

T h r e e i n t e r r e l a t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s l e a d u s t o t h a t c o n c l u s i o n

. F i r s t

, B r a g g ’ s

c r e d i b i l i t y a l r e a d y w a s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p e a c h e d a t t r i a l b y h i s c r i m i n a l r e c o r d a n d h i s

a d m i s s i o n t h a t h e h o p e d f o r l e n i e n c y o n h i s N e w J e r s e y s e n t e n c e i n e x c h a n g e f o r h i s

t e s t i m o n y a g a i n s t R a d

. ( S u p p

. A p p ’ x a t 1 3 8

- 4 0

. ) T h a t a d m i s s i o n l e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

t o i n s t r u c t t h e j u r y t h a t B r a g g ’ s t e s t i m o n y “ m a y h a v e b e e n i n f

l u e n c e d b y [ h i s ] p l e a

a g r e e m e n t ” a n d t h a t t h e j u r y “ s h o u l d c o n s i d e r h i s t e s t i m o n y w i t h g r e a t c a r e a n d c a u t i o n

. ”

( I d

. a t 1 0 9 2

. ) M o r e o v e r

, B r a g g a d m i t t e d o n c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n t h a t h e l i e d o n o t h e r

occasions ( i d

. a t 2 0 1

, 2 8 4 )

, a n d t h o s e a d m i s s i o n s a n d o t h e r e v i d e n c e l e d R a d ’ s c o u n s e l t o

a r g u e t h r o u g h o u t h i s c l o s i n g t h a t B r a g g h a d l i e d u n d e r o a t h a n d “ l i e d c o n s t a n t l y ” ( i d

. a t

1 2 0 6

, 1 2 1 1

, 1 2 1 8

- 1 9

, 1 2 2 3

- 2 4

, 1 2 2 8

, 1 2 3 3 )

. 5

4 As the Government noted belo w , Bragg ’ s reference to “ him ” likely was to Rad bec ause

(1) Bragg ma d e the refer e nc e in connection w ith t he New Jersey case involving Rad, and

(2) Bragg claimed, and the evidence at Rad ’ s trial sh owed, that it was Rad who discussed

thes e issues with Bragg and paid him $ 20,000.

5 To be clear, we do not reject this claim on t he ground that impeachment of Bragg with

his statements at his Michigan sentencing would have been merely cumulat ive. It would

n ot have be en. The same cannot be said fo r t he evidence underlying Rad ’ s other claims

. Rad claims , for example, that the production of additional materials and correction of

Bragg ’ s allegedly false testim ony at trial would have allowed him to impeach Br agg with7

S e c o n d

, t h e G o v e r n m e n t i t s e l f a c kn o w l e d g e d B r a g g ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y p r o b l e m s a t

c l o s i n g a n d a r g u e d t h a t t h e j u r y s h o u l d n o t a c c e p t h i s t e s t i m o n y a t f a c e v a l u e b u t s h o u l d

i n s t e a d l o o k t o d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e c o r r o b o r a t i n g t h a t t e s t i m o n y

. ( I d

. a t 1 1 5 5

. ) T h e

G o v e r n m e n t t h e n h i g h l i g h t e d t h a t c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e t h r o u g h o u t i t s c l o s i n g

. T h a t

e v i d e n c e

, a s r e l e v a n t t o t h e C o u n t O n e s p a m m i n g c o n s p i r a c y

, i n c l u d e d S k y p e c h a t l o g s

a n d e m a i l s s h o w i n g t h a t B r a g g s e n t R a d t e s t e m a i l s w i t h f a l s e h e a d e r i n f

o r m a t i o n ( i d

. a t

7 0

, 1 1 8

- 1 9

, 1 2 4

- 2 8

, 1 3 5

- 3 6

, 1 3 7 6

- 1 4 0 0 )

, t h a t B r a g g i n f o r m e d R a d t h a t h i s e m a i l s w e r e

b y p a s s i n g s p a m f

i l t e r s ( i d

. a t 8 2

- 8 3

, 1 2 9 6 )

, a n d t h a t R a d c o n t i n u e d t o w o r k w i t h B r a g g

e v e n a f t e r l e a r n i n g t h a t h e h a d b e e n i n d i c t e d f o r i l l e g a l s p a m m i n g i n M i c h i g a n ( i d

. a t

1 0 6

- 0 7

, 1 2 9 9

- 1 3 0 0 )

, w h i c h R a d i n i t i a l l y d e n i e d h a v i n g kn o w n a t t h e t i m e ( i d

. a t 5 0 )

.

F i n a l l y

, t h e j u r y f

o u n d R a d n o t g u i l t y o f C o u n t s T w o t h r o u g h F o u r

, w h i c h c h a r g e d

R a d w i t h a i d i n g a n d a b e t t i n g B r a g g ’ s i l l e g a l s p a m m i n g a c t i v i t i e s

. T h o s e c h a r g e s w e r e

s u p p o r t e d b y B r a g g ’ s t e s t i m o n y b u t n o t b y t h e s a m e k i n d o f c o r r o b o r a t i n g e v i d e n c e

s u p p o r t i n g t h e s p a m m i n g c o n s p i r a c y c h a r g e d i n C o u n t O n e o f w h i c h t h e j u r y f o u n d R a d

g u i l t y

. G i v e n a l l o f t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, t h e r e i s n o r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e j u r y

w o u l d h a v e f

o u n d R a d n o t g u i l t y o f C o u n t O n e t o o i f R a d h a d b e e n a b l e t o f u r t h e r

a p ossible motive to cooperate in exc ha nge for leniency in his Michigan case . But Bragg

al ready admitted that he had an actual motive to testify against Rad because he hoped for

leniency in his Ne w Jersey case. The speculative possibility that B ragg may a ls o have

had such a motive b y rea son o f his Michigan case

— which did not involve Rad

, and

which had long concluded by the time of Rad ’ s trial

— woul d have added nothing to that

line of impeachment.8

i m p e a c h B r a g g w i t h B r a g g ’ s s t a t e m e n t s a t h i s M i c h i g a n s e n t e n c i n g

. N o r i s t h e r e a n y

m e r i t t o a n y o f t h e o t h e r c l a i m s a n d i s s u e s o n w h i c h w e g r a n t e d a C O A

. 6

I I I

.

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. R a d ’ s m o t io n

f o r l e a v e t o f

i l e a n o v e r l e n g t h r e p l y b r i e f i s g r a n t e d

. R a d ’ s m o t i o n t o t a k e “ j u d i c i a l

n o t i c e ” i s d e n i e d

. 7

6 In his opening brief, Rad raises a number of clai ms that w e d i d not certify fo r appeal.

A fte r the Government argued that we should not consider those claims, Rad clarified that

he raised them merely to provide “ context. ” In any event

, we decline to address th e

merits of Rad ’ s non

- cert ified claims.

7 By this motion, Rad seeks to assert a c lai m that he has been rendere d innoc ent by Rad v.

Attorney General , 983 F.3d 6 51 (3d Cir. 2020), in which we rec e ntly addressed the

immigratio n consequences of his convictions. We could construe Rad ’ s motion a s a n

a pplicatio n under 28 U.S.C. § § 2244 and 2 255 f or leave to file a second or successive

§ 2255 motion because Rad appears to be seeking to raise another § 2255 claim and our

disposition of this appeal concludes hi s initial § 2255 proceeding. See United State s v.

Folk , 954 F.3d 597, 609 (3d Cir. 20 20)

. We decline to do so both because Rad knows

ho w to file § 2244 applications (C.A . No. 17

- 2290) and because Rad ’ s reliance on our

opinion in his immigration case does no t qualify for authorization. See 28 U.S.C.

§§ 22 55( h). We further decline to addr ess w hether Rad has any other procedural

mechanism for raising this c laim because this claim lacks merit. In Rad

, we held (as

relevant here) that convi ctions under 18 U.S.C. § § 1037(a)(3) and (4) categorically

invol ve fraud or deceit for purposes of 8 U.S .C. § 1101(a )(43)(M)(i)

. Contrary to Rad ’ s

argument, we did not i nterpret t hese statute s in a way that mak es Rad inno cent of those

offenses or that ren ders the evidence at trial insufficient to convict

.