The Honor able Paul L . Maloney , Chief United States District Judge f or the Western District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. 1 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: 10a0055n.06 No. 07-2183 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. AL ON Z O BA TES, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PEA L F RO M THE U NI TED STATES DIST RI CT CO UR T F OR THE EASTE RN DISTRICT OF M ICHIGAN

Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; GIBBONS, Circuit Judge; MALONEY, Chief District Judge. * JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , Circuit Judge. De fe nd a nt- a pp e lla nt A lon zo B a te s a

pp e a ls from the district court’s denial of hi s motion for a new tria l under Brady v. M aryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). B ates pled guilty to four counts of f

ail i n g t o fi l e a t ax return a nd was c onvicted on four counts of thef

t from a pr og ram re ceiving fe d er al funds and one count of ba nk fra ud. The c harg es rela ted to Bates’s use of his city -funde d pay roll during his three y ear s as a De troit Cit y councilman. Bates argued bef

ore the district court that the g overnme nt failed to turn over exculpatory

and materia l evidence in the form of handwritten notes by an FBI case ag ent that containe d two purported statements made by

Bates’s for

mer g irlfriend, V ere nda Ar nold. The st atements we re not include dNo. 07-2183

United States v. Bates

2 in the previously

disclosed FB I 302 repor

t, authore d by the s ame a g ent, that detailed the interview wi th A rn old . T he dis tr ic t c ourt re je c te d B a te s’ s Bradyclaims reg arding both purported state me nts . F or

the re a so ns he re in, we a ff ir m. I

. On Marc h 9 , 2 00 6, a fe de ra l gr a nd jur y re tur ne d a supe rs e din g ind ic tme nt ch a rg ingB a te s in fourtee n counts, including mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (counts one thr oug h four) ; t h ef tfr o m a p ro gra m re ce i v i n g fe d er al fu n d s , i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C

. § 6 6 6 (c o u n t s fi v e t h ro u gh

e ig ht) ; e xtor

tio n, in vio la tio n of 18 U. S.C. § 19 51 (c ount nin e ); ba nk fr a ud , in vio la tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 1344 (count ten) ; and fa ilure to file a ta x return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (counts ele ven thr ou g h f ourt e e n) . T he g ov e rn me nt a lle g e d th a t B a te s, a n e le c te d me mbe r o f th e Detro it Ci ty Counc il, or c he str a te d a

sc he me to e mpl oy

“ g ho st” e mpl oy e e s, inc lud ingAr no ld, who wer e pa id hourly by th e c it y to p e r f o r m w o r k f o r th e o f f ic e o f Co u n c il ma

n B a te s b u t w h o a c tu a ll y d id not pe rf or m th e ir wo rk ob lig a tio ns , the re by ste a lin g mon e y fr om the c ity

. On Au g us t 22, 200 6, the fi rs t day of t ri al, B ates pled guilty to all four counts of f

ailure to file a

tax return, and the g overnme nt dis mis se d t h e f

o u r c o u n t s o f m a i l f

r a u d

. A j u r

y c o n v i c t e d B a t e s o n f

o u r c o u n t s o f t h e f

t fr om a p ro gra m re ce iving f

eder al funds and one count of ba nk fra ud but did not reac h a ver dict on the

e xtor tio n c ount. On J anuar y 30, 2007, Bates moved for a new trial, alleg ing that the g overnme nt failed to turn

over ex culpatory evidenc e prior to trial in violation of Brady

. B a te s a rgue d th a t th e g ov e rn me nt d id not disclose FB Icase ag ent M ichae l Hay nie’s handwritten notes, which indicated that Arnold ha d said during a gover

nment debrie fing that Bates did not know t hat s he was not working her a ssigne dNo. 07-2183

United States v. Bates

3 twenty hours per wee k. That st atement was not included in the FBI 302 repor t formally summarizing the de bri efi ng th at w a s a uth or e d b y

Ag e nt H a y

nie a nd dis c los e d to the de fe ns e pr ior to t ri a l. F ur the rm or e , B a te s c on te nd e d that H a y nie a lso omi tte d f

ro m th e F B I30 2 r e po rt

the fa c t th a t A rn old str on g ly dis a g re e d wi th the g ov e rn me nt’ s c a lc ulatio n of the ho ur s fo r wh ic h sh e wa s w rong fu lly paid. The g overnme nt d i s p uted whethe r Arnold ha d made the sta tement re lating to B ates’s knowledg e during the debrie fing and argued that Arnold’s c omment reg arding the number of hours billed that she ac tually

worke d was made outside the pre sence of the prose cution team. On the question of whether there was a Brady violation, the Government argued before the district court that 1) Ar no ld’ s st a te me nt a s to B a te s’ s k no wl e dg e wa s spe c ulativ e a nd the re fo re ina dmi ssi ble a t tr ia l; 2) in light of the overw helming e vidence at trial, the outcome would not have been dif fer ent eve n if the evide nce ha d been a dmitted; and 3) Bates was on notice of the essential fa cts containe d in the handwr itten notes. The district court held evidentiary hear ings on the m otion on Marc h 7 and J une 12, 2007, and subsequently

denied B ates’s motion on J uly 26, 2007. Reg arding whether Arnold made a statement during the debriefing that disputed the percenta g e of hours bi lled for which she actually worke d, the dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d th a t B a te s d id n ot o ff e r a ny e vid e nc e to r e fu te a

c on tr a dic tor

y a sse rt ion ma de in the af fidavit of Ar

nold’s attorney , Robert Har ris. Har ris had stated tha t Ar n o l d never made that statement to the p ro s ec u tion team but rather had made the claim to Har ris outside the prese nce of the prosec ution team. Be cause Bates did not establish that the prosecution team was eve n awa re tha t Arnold claimed to have worked at least fifty perc ent of the hours bil led, the district cour t found thatNo. 07-2183

United States v. Bates

Bates raise s this arg ument ag ain on appea l. The district cour t’s conclusion, howe ver, tha t 1 Bates had not off

ere d any evidenc e to re fute the state ment containe d i n t h e aff idavit of Arnold’s attorney that Arnold neve r made this statement to the prosecution team, is fully support ed b y

the rec ord. B ates doe s not now cite, nor does a review of the record reflec t, any evidenc e that cha lleng es the district court’s f

inding. 4 Bates could not establish suppression of that infor mation by the gover nment. Turning to the issue

1 of Ar no ld’ s sta te me nt re g a rd ing B a te s’ s lac k of k no wl e dg e of

he r f a ilure to w or

k h e r b ill e d h ou rs , the district court pre sumed that Arnold made the statement t o t he prose cution team during the de br ie fi ng . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d, ho we ve r, that the g ov e rn me nt’ s fa ilure to dis clo se this information to Bates did not constitute a Brady violation beca use Bates was indisputably awa re tha t Arnold mig ht be a sourc e of e x culpatory evidenc e and that he re asonably should have intervie wed her on the subject of whe ther B ates kne w of he r ac tual work hours. On September

20, 2007, the district court sente n ced Ba tes to thirty -three months of imprisonment. Bate s timely appea led. II. This court “r eviews de nial of a motion for a new tria l based on Brady viola t ions under an abuse of discretion standa

rd,” but re views “the district court’s de termination as to t he existence of

a Brady v i o lation . . . de novo .” United States v. Graham , 484 F.3d 413, 416- 17 (6th Cir. 2007) (c i t i n g United States v. J

ones , 399 F.3d 640, 647 ( 6th Cir. 2005), and United States v. Miller , 161 F.3d 977, 987 ( 6th Cir. 1998)). I I I

. Under Brady , “the suppre ssion by the prosec ution of evidenc e fa vorable to an acc used upon

re qu e st v iol a te s d

ue pr oc e ss w he re the e vid e nc e is m a te ri a l e ith e r t o g uil t or to p un ish me nt,No. 07-2183

United States v. Bates

5 irrespe ctive of the g ood faith o r b ad fa ith of the prosec ution.” 373 U.S. at 87. There is no Brady vio la tio n, ho we ve r, “ un le ss the no nd isc los ur e wa s so se ri ou s th a t th e re is a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that the suppresse d evidenc e would have produce d a diffe rent ve rdict.” Strickler v. G reene , 5 27 U. S. 263, 281 (1999). As the Court noted in Kyles v. W hitley , “[t] he question is not whether the def endant

wo uld mor e lik e ly

tha n n ot hav e recei ved a

dif fe re nt v e rd ic t w iththe e vid e nc e , b ut w he the r i n it s absenc e he r ece ived a f

air trial, unde rstood as a tria l resulting in a verdic t worth y o f confidence .” 51 4 U .S. 41 9, 43 4 (19 95 ). We h a ve he ld t ha t w he re the de fe nd a nt w a s “ ‘a wa re of the e sse nti a l f

a c ts that w ou ld en a

ble him to ta ke a dv a nta g e of the e xcu lpator

y e vid e nc e ,’ ” the g ov e rn me nt’ s f a ilure to disclose that evidenc e does not violate Brady

. Sp irk o v . M itc he ll , 368 F.3d 603, 610 (6th Cir. 2004) (c i t i n g United States v. Todd , 920 F.2d 399, 405 ( 6th C i r. 1 990)). To be entitled to a new tr ial, a defe ndant must also show that the s uppresse d exculpatory evidenc e “could not have been discove red

ear lier with due diligenc e, and is mate rial.” United States v. Corrado , 227 F.3d 528, 538 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S

tat es v . F ro st , 125 F.3d 346, 382 ( 6th Cir. 1997)). Bates has not shown that he w ould have be en unable to obta in A rnold’s statement re g arding his kn ow le dg e of

wo rk ho ur s th ro ug h r e a so na

ble pr e tr ia l du e dil ig e nc e . Ra the r, the re c or d r e fl e c ts t h at Ar n o l d ’s s tatement and the rela ted testimony that might re sult from the discover y of that state me nt w e re a va ila

ble to B a te s fr om a n e a sil y a c c e ssi ble a nd

kn ow n s ourc e . B a te s h a s h ims e lf

ar gu ed t h at hi s knowledg e about whe ther his employ ees w ere working the hours for which they bil le d w a s a

c e ntr a l is su e fo r the de fe nd a nt a t tr ia l, a nd the re c or d de mon str a te s th a t B a te s a nd his counsel we re a

war e that Ar

nold might have been a ble to provide i n fo rm at i o n on that issue. F ur the rm or e , g ive n th e mor e tha n tw e nty -f

ive y e a r r oma

nti c re la tio ns hip be tw e e n B a te s a nd Ar no ldNo. 07-2183

United States v. Bates

6 a nd the “ str on g e mot ion a l a tta c hme nt” that A rn old sti ll f e e ls f or B a te s, B a te s and

his c ouns e l c le a rl y had ac cess to Ar

nold pretrial. B ates’s tria l counsel, Steven F i s h m an , stated that he ha d “many

conver sations” with Arnold’s law y er pr ior to trial and that Ar nold’s lawy er “ kept [him ] apprised of what wa s g oing on” with A rnold. (Mot. Hr’g Tr. at 77.) In fac t, before Arnold pled g uilty , Fishman believed that Arnold “was going to stand trial and c laim that she didn’t misstate her hours, tha t she

wo rk e d th os e ho ur s and

sh e wa s su

pp os e dly g oin g to e xpla in h owsh e wa s a ble to h a ve a

fu ll- tim e job plu s w or

k th e 20 ho ur s a

we e k f or wh ic h s he wa s p a id. ” (M ot. Hr ’g Tr. at 72 .) A r e a so na ble de fe n d a n t , t h e r e f

o r e , “ w o u l d h a v e p u r s u e d t h a t i n qu i r y ” b y i n t e r

v i e w i n g A r

n o l d p r i o r t o tr ia l, “unless, of c ourse, he al re ady knew that the inquiry

would not in fact re sult in ex culpatory information.” Spirko , 3 68 F .3 d a t 61 1. B e c a us e B a te s wa s aw a re of the e sse nti a l f a c ts tha t w ou ld enable him to take a dvantag e of the exculpatory evidenc e and c ould have discove red the evidenc e p r io r to tr ia l w it

h d u e d il ig ence , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s denia l of Bates’s motion for a ne w trial. Even if this Court w ere to a ssume that Bates could not have discovere d the evidenc e prior t o t ri al wi t h d

u e d i l i gen ce , t h e re co rd d em o n s t ra t es t h at Ar n o l d ’s s t at em en t ab o u tBa t es ’s k n o wl ed ge and rela ted testimony on that topic would not have c reated a “ rea sonable proba bility ” of a diffe rent

v er d i ct. Strickler , 5 2 7 U

. S. a t 2 8 1

. B a te s a r g u e s th a t “ A r n o ld ’ s p r o p o s e d te s ti mo n y , li k e her statements to ag ents during the debr iefing , would have c ontradicte d ever y thing that the G overnme nt

was a rg uing a bout [Ba tes’s] knowle dg e of the hours worke d/billed by his employ ees.” (De f.’s B r. at 10.) While Arnold’s st atement and testimony may be viewe d as somewhat favora ble to Bates, the inconsistencies pre sent in that testimony rende r i t insufficient to have produce d a differe nt result atNo. 07-2183

United States v. Bates

7 trial. Althoug h Arnold testified a t the evidentiary hear ing that Bates did not know when she worke d few er tha n twenty hours per wee k, she contra dicted her self in explaining that B ates wa s “ver y hard on” his emplo y ees a

nd require d that they

take notes at meeting s to document and prove that they

wer e ther e. (Evid. Hr’g Tr. at 13.) Fur thermore , Arnold testified that while the re “ wer e we eks that [she ] wo rk e d le ss t

ha n 2 0 h ours ” (E vid . H r’ g Tr . a t 17 ), B a te s a pp ro ve d a ll o f h e r t ime sh e e ts. Th e se statements ca st significa

nt doubt on Arnold’s claim that Bates lacke d knowledg e about the hour s she worke d. The re cord a lso revea ls signifi ca n tqu es t i o n s re gar d i n g Ar n o l d ’s cr ed i b i l i t y t h at wo u l d impact the value of

her te stimony

at trial. Se e Mas on v. Mi tchel l , 320 F.3d 604, 629 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (appr oving district c ourt’s cr edibility deter mination in Brady analy sis). First, Arnold’ s long rela tionship wit h Bates, the fact t hat t hey have a s on toge ther for whom Bates pay s child support, and Arnold’s “ strong emotional attachme nt” and desire not “ to se e him go to jail” a ll demonstrate a bia s in favor of

Bates. (Evid. Hr’ g Tr. at 18, 30- 31.) Second, the g overnme nt has identified seve ral i n s t a n c e s o f

u n t r u t h f u l n e s s i n A r

n o l d ’ s t e s t i m o n y

t h a tw o u l d

u n d e r c u ti t s v a l u e b e f

o r e a j u r y, including A rnold’s lac k of ca ndor re g arding whether she worke d the midnight shift at the hospital leaving her day s fre e, the nature of he r re lationship with Bates, a nd whether

she did work f

or B ates during her hour s at the hospital. I n light of the inconsistencies in Arnold’s testimony and the c redibility

issues raised by

the g overnme nt, Arnold’s statement does not rise to the level of materiality war ranting reve rsal under Brady

.No. 07-2183

United States v. Bates

8 I V. For the fore g oing rea sons, we affirm the district court’s de nial of def endant B ates’s motion fo r a ne w tri a l and

a ff ir m hi s c on vic tio ns .