FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 83 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 01 67 -RAL-M AP-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MANUEL A. WALCOTT, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 2, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Fo ll owi ng a jury tria l, Ma nu el A. W al co tt(“ W al co tt ”) ap pe al s h is
co nv ic ti on s fo r en ti ci ng , andco ns pi rin g t o e nt ic e, a m in orto en ga ge in a co m m erci al sex act , anden ti ci ng a m in or to en ga ge in sex ua ll y

ex pl ic itco nduc tfo r th e p ur

po se of p ro du ci ng vi su al de pi ct io ns of s uc h c on du ct . On ap pe al , W al co ttco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredwhen it : (1 ) refu se d t o g iv e a

“ m is si ng wit ne ss ” jury ins tru ct io n re ga rd in g Walco tt ’s co- de fen da ntPas qu al e Hol t (“ Hol t” ); ( 2) di d n otall ow Walco ttto co m m en t m or e ex pa ns iv el y

at c lo si ng arg um en t o n t he go ve rn m en t’s fa il ur e to cal l Ho lt ; an d (3 ) fai le d t o re qu ire th e go ve rn m en t t o g ran t Ho ltus e imm un it y or, i n t he alt ern at iv e, to di sm is s t he in di ct m en t. Aft er re vi ew of th e b rie fs an d re co rd , we affi rm . I. BACK GROUND AND PROCEDURAL HIS TORY On Ap ril 21 , 20 10 , th e g ran d ju ry is su edanin di ct m en t ag ai ns t Ho ltan d W al co tt . Cou ntOne a ll eg edth at , in or abo utJan ua ry 20 09 , Hol t an d Walco tt
co ns pi redto en ti ce a m in or(“ M.S.”) to en ga ge in a co m m erci al sex act , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 15 91 (a)( 1) , (b) (2 ), (c), 1 59 4( c). Co un t Two all eg edth at , in or abo utJan ua ry

20 09 , Hol t an d Walco tten ti ceda m in orto en ga ge in a co m m erci al sex act , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1 59 1( a), (b )(2 ), (c). Fi na ll y , Co un t Th ree a ll eg edth at , onor abo utJan ua ry 26 , 20 09 , Hol t an d Walco tten ti ced
a m in orto en ga ge in sex ua ll y ex pl ic itco nduc t fo r th e p ur po se of p ro du ci ng vi su al de pi ct io ns of s uc h c on du ct , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2 25 1( a), (e)
. Hol t p le d 1

There was a

fourth count in the indictment cha rg ing H olt with possession of child 1 pornography . That count is not at issue her e. 2gu il ty to Co un t Two pu rs ua ntto a pl ea ag reem en t, wh il e Walco ttpro ceed edto

tri al
. A. Pre-T ri al Proc eedi ng s a nd Wa lc ot t’s Open in g S ta tement Befo re tria l b eg an , W al co ttdi sc ov eredth at , whi le inpri so n, Ho ltm ad e a nu m be r of tel ep ho ne cal ls th atpu rp orte dl y cal le d i nt o que st io n Ho lt ’s tru st worth in es s. If th e p ro se cu to r cal le d Ho ltas awit ne ss , W al co ttin te nd edto us e th es e p ho ne cal ls on cro ss -ex am in at io n t o i m pe ach Hol t’s cr ed ib il it y . Dur in g h is op en in g s ta te m en t, Walco tt ’s cou ns el di sc us se d Ho lt ’s pl ea ag reem en t an d n ot edth atth e g ov ern m en t d is m is se d a ll bu t o ne ch arg e. He to ld th e jury tha t “ Pas qu al e Hol t was th e le ad er o f th is pro st itut io n ri ng ” an d t ha t Ho lt
wou ldtes ti fy

to th ateffe ct . W al co tt ’s cou ns el als o s ai d t ha t “ if the Gov ern m en t ch oo se s n otto cal l M r. Hol t, I p ro m is e y ou I wil l, an d I wi ll askhi m an d h e wil l te ll y ou th at[he was t he lea de r of th e p ro st itut io n ri ng ]. ” Afte r th is op en in g st at em en t, the go ve rn m en t s ta te d t ha t i t h adno t yet de ci de d wh ethe r to cal l Ho ltas a wit ne ss . B. Go ve rnment’s Ev id ence at T ri al The go ve rn m en t’s fi rs t wi tn es s was M.S., th e m in orvi ct im of t he cri m es . M.S. t es ti fie d tha t Ho ltin tro du cedhe r to W al co ttina ho te l ro om at t he Day s In n whe re Walco tt ’s gi rlf

rie ndan d a no th er wo m anna m edEricaLica ta(“ Lica ta ”) were

3pr es en t. The gro up sm ok edm ari juan a to ge th er. The n Ho ltan d Walco ttto oknu de pi ctur es of the wom en , with Ho ltus in g acel l p ho ne an d Walco ttus in g asi lv er di gi ta l ca m era. M.S . di d n otkn ow wh atth e p ic tu res wou ldbe us edfor
. The gro up lef

t t he ho te l, wi th M.S. th in ki ng th ey were g oi ng to ge t fo od
. In st ead , th ey

dro ve to an ot he r ho te l, wh ic h M .S. tes ti fie d s he th ou gh t was th e Marrio tt . Whe n t he gro up arri ve d a t t he ne w ho te l, Ho ltask edM.S. to be a pr os ti tu te , andLica tafurth er d is cu ss edth e id ea wi th M.S. Hol t an d M .S. ha d n ot pr ev io us ly dis cu ss edth e id ea o f M.S. b eco m in g apro st itut e. M.S. an d Li cat a m et
a m anwho th ey

th ou gh t was a cl ie ntat t he Marr io tt , andM.S. in te nd edto rob hi m rat he r th anha ve sex wit h h im
. M.S. an d Li cat a en te redth e m an ’s roo m an d h e of fere d t he m

$3 00 to pe rfo rm

a se x a ct . Whe n t he two acce pt edth e m on ey , th e
m anrev eal edhi m se lf a s an un de rco ve r ag en t, an d h e an d h is co ll eag ue s arres te d th em . Lica tates ti fie d n ex t. Lic at a te st ifi edth atsh e worke d a s a p ro st itut e an d m et W al co ttan d Ho ltin Jan ua ry 20 09 th ro ug h Walco tt 's g irl fri en d, Sh on ti a Jo hn so n ("J oh ns on ”),wh o was als o apro st itut e. Lica tates ti fie d t ha t, as a pr os ti tu te , her pi m ps po st edpi ctur es of h er o n the Int ern et , andth atsh e d idno t kno w ho w to po st th os e p ic tu res . Afte r Lica tam etW al co ttan d J oh ns on , th ey ag reedto he lp Lica ta
m ak e m on ey

as apro st itut e b y

pu tt in g a ds on th e In te rn etan d a ns weri ng th e p ho ne

4to tak e ap po in tm en ts forhe r. The ni gh t Li cat a m etHol t an d Walco tt , Licat a sp en t

th e n ig htwit h Ho ltat h is ap art m en t. The n ex t d ay , Hol t i nt ro du cedhe r to
so m eo ne he cal le d “ Gru m py,” hi s n ic kn am e fo r M.S. Lica tato ldHol t tha t s he was ne rv ou s ab ou t h ow youn g M .S. lo ok ed , andHol t t ol d h er tha t M .S. wou ldbe ei gh te enin th ree m on th s. Ho ltto ldLica tath atsh e “ wou ldne edto tra in [M.S.] si nc e [Lic at a] ha[d ] ex pe rie nc e an d t ha t, b as ic al ly, [Lic at a] woul d h av e to tea ch [M.S.] th e ro pe s [o f be in g apro st itut e].” Lica tath us to okon th e ta skof m an ag in g M.S. fo r Hol t. Late r th atsame day , Licat a wou ndup in a ho te l ro om wit h M .S., Jo hn so n, W al co tt , andHol t. Hol t an d Walco ttto okpi ctur es of M .S. an d Li cat a inth e h ot el
ro om . A call cam e in fro m a cl ie nt“ fo r 30 0 [d ol lars ] fo r two gi rls .” W al co tt dr ov e M.S. an d Li cat a to th e h ot el wher e th is cli en t was st ay in g; Hol t an d Jo hn so n, am on g o th ers , were al so pa ss en ge rs . Whe n the gro up arri ve d a t t he ho te l, M.S . andLica tawentto th e cl ie nt ’s roo m an d t he cli en t p ai d t he m

$3 00 to pe rfo rm a se x a ct . Once th e cl ie ntha nd edov er the m on ey , th ere was a kn oc k o n th e d oo r, an d t he FBI ca m e in to th e ro om . Afte r M.S. an d Li cat a’s te st im on y , th e g ov ern m en t t ol d t he di st ric t co urt th atitdi d n otpl anto cal l Ho ltas awit ne ss . W al co ttto ldth e d is tri ctco urt t ha t h e pl an ne d t o c al l Ho lt . W al co ttass ert edth atth e g ov ern m en t d idno t p lan t o c al l
5Hol t b ecau se Hol t’s t es ti m on y wou ldpre se ntpro bl em s fo r th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se an d b ecau se th e g ov ern m en t wan te d t o p rev en t Walco ttfro m bri ng in g up

“ ex tri ns ic ev id en ce o f sp eci fic co nduc t o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n,” na m el y de ta il s o f
so m e o f Hol t’s p ris onph on e cal ls
. Hol t’s co un se l, h owe ve r, to ldth e d is tri ctco urt t ha t Ho ltin te nd edto in vo ke hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t p riv il eg e ag ai ns t s el f-i nc riminat io n a ndth atHol t wo ul d n ot te st ify if cal le d b y

W al co tt . The d is tri ctco urt al lo wedW al co ttto co m m en t o n Hol t’s fa il ur e to tes ti fy

du rin g c lo si ng arg um en t, b utde ni edW al co tt ’s reque stto fo rce Ho ltto in vo ke th e p riv il eg e in fro ntof t he jury. Hol t l at er t oo k t he st an d o ut si de th e p res en ce o f th e jury. W al co ttin di cat ed th athe want edto askHol t ab ou t, i nt er al ia , th e ev en ts on Jan ua ry 26 , 20 09 , when Hol t ac te d a s a p im

p fo r Lica taan d M .S.; Ho lt ’s cal ls fro m jail ; Ho lt ’s pl ea d eal wit h t he go ve rn m en t; an d wh y Hol t was no t p ro se cu te d fo r ha vi ng sex with M .S. Hol t i nd ic at edth at , if ca ll edby W al co ttto tes ti fy , he wo ul d i nv ok e h is Fif th Am en dm en t p riv il eg e ag ai ns t s el f-i nc riminat io n. The di st ric t co urt d ecl in ed , “ in [it s] di sc ret io n,” to ha ve Hol t i nv ok e h is Fif th Am en dm en t ri gh t o n t he st an d i n fro ntof the jury. Hol t d idst at e th at , if ca ll edby the go ve rn m en t, h e wou ldtes ti fy

“ [i]n a cco rd an ce wi th [hi s] pl ea ag reem en t.” C. Ju ry Ins truc tio ns 6Afte r bo th si de s re st ed , th e d is tri ctco urt wen t o ve r th e jury ins tru ct io ns .

W al co ttto ldth e d is tri ctco urt t ha t, dur in g h is clo si ng arg um en t, h e wan te d t o co m m en t t o t he jury ab ou t the go ve rn m en t’s fa il ur e to cal l Ho lt . W al co tt
ex pl ai ne d t ha t, dur in g h is op en in g s ta te m en t, h e m ad e se ve ral “pr et ty bol d” st at em en ts ab ou t the ev id en ce i n t he cas e, pa rti cu la rly abo utwhatHol t wo ul d s ay , an d t ha t Ho ltwou ldno lo ng er b e te st ifyin g. Inres po ns e, th e g ov ern m en t s ta te d t ha t i t d idno t m en ti on Hol t dur in g i ts op en in g s ta te m en t, an d tha t i t h adno t m en ti on edan yth in g Ho ltsai d o ve r th e co ur se of t he pro ceed in gs . The g ov ern m en t as se rte d t ha t an y pro m is es W al co tt
m ad e ab ou t Ho lt ’s tes ti m on y were s im pl y m is ta ke n t ria l s tra te gy. The di stric t
co urt as ke d wh ethe r th e fac t t ha t Ho ltwou ldtes ti fy if c al le d b y

th e g ov ern m en t, bu t n otby W al co tt , was “ a li tt le bi t fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r? ” The d is tri ctco urt al so as ke d wh ethe r Hol t was “un de r [the go ve rn m en t’s] con tro l,” a ndreject edth e go ve rn m en t’s co nt en ti onth atHol t was no t u nd er i ts co nt ro l. Fo ll owi ng th is di sc us si on , W al co ttfil edhi s p ro po se d “ m is si ng wit ne ss ” jury ins tru ct io n: It was pa rti cu la rly wit hi n th e po wer o f th e go ve rn m en t to pr oduc e Pas qu al e Hol t as a wit ne ss who co ul d ha ve gi ve n m at eri al te st im on y on an is su e in th is cas e. The Defen da nt Man ue l W al co tt can no t cal l Pas qu al e Hol t as a witne ss . The go ve rn m en t’s fai lu re to cal l Pas qu al e Hol t as a wit ne ss m ay gi ve ris e to an in fere nc e th athi s t es ti m on y wou ldbe un fav or ab le to th e g ov ern m en t.
7W al co ttarg ue d tha t t he in st ru ct io n was ap pr op ria te be cau se Hol t was pe cu li arl y

wit hi n t he co nt ro l o f th e g ov ern m en t, i n t ha t h e wou ldtes ti fy if c al le d b y

th e go ve rn m en t, b utwou ldin vo ke hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t ri gh ts if c al le d b y W al co tt . Acco rd in g t o Walco tt , when a wit ne ss is pe cu li arl y wit hi n t he co nt ro l o f on e pa rty andco ul d g iv e te st im on y th atwou ldelu ci da te th e tr an sa ct io n, t he factth at th e wit ne ss do es no t t es ti fy gi ve s ri se to th e p res um

pt io n t ha t t he tes ti m on y

wou ld be un fav or ab le to th e p art y in co nt ro l o f th e wit ne ss . W al co ttbu tt res se d h is cla im th atHol t’s t es ti m on y

wou ldbe un fav or ab le to th e g ov ern m en t b y ass ert in g t ha t Hol t’s jai l-c el l t el ep ho ne cal ls wou ldun de rm in e th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se an d c as t do ub t o n Ho lt ’s m ot iv es forco op erat in g. Whil e Walco ttco nc ed edth athe di d n ot kn ow wh y

th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto cal l Ho lt , he a ss ert edth at“ th e d efen se st at ed
un equi vo cal ly tha t i t b el ie ve d t he tes ti m on y of P as qu al e Hol t wo ul d i n fa ctbe fav or ab le to it s ca se an d wen t t o g reatm eas ur es to eli ci t t hi s t es ti m on y .” W al co tt di d n otfurth er ex pl ai n wh y Hol t’s t es ti m on y

wou ldhe lp hi m . Inco urt t he fol lo win g m orni ng , W al co ttarg ue d t ha t Ho lt ’s tes ti m on y wou ld ad d t o t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se (i.e ., th athi s t es ti m on y wou ldno t b e cu m

ul at iv e) be cau se Hol t was all eg ed ly “pr es en t ev ery st ep of t he way an d c on sp ire d wi th [Walco tt ] to co m

m it[th e] crim es [atis su e].” W al co ttim pl ie d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t di d n otcal l Ho ltbe cau se of “ th e p ro bl em s h e h as in term s o f ot he r is su es th atwil l
8cas t d oubton hi s cr ed ib il ity an d h is tru th [si c] worth in es s.” If Hol t t es ti fie d, W al co tt ’s pl anwas t o a skhi m ab ou t t he subs ta nt iv e o ffen se s, the n t o i m pe ach hi m . W al co ttals o a rg ue d a ga in th atHol t s ho ul d b e fo rcedto in vo ke hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t ri gh ts in fro ntof t he jury. Afte r co ns id eri ng th es e arg um en ts , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re vi si t i ts rul in g th atHol t wo ul d n otha ve to in vo ke hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t p riv il eg e in fro ntof t he jury. It a ls o d ecl in edto gi ve a “ m is si ng wit ne ss ” jury ins tru ct io n o f th e type pr op os edby W al co tt , bu t d idall ow Walco tt , in clo si ng arg um en t, t o a skth e jury why H ol t was no t ca ll edby the go ve rn m en t. The di st ric t co urt, h owe ve r, di d n ot al lo w W al co ttto say tha t h e was no t al lo wedto cal l Ho lt
. The di stric t co urt ca ll edHol t as it s o wn wi tn es s t o “ pu t b efo re thi s ju ry he ’s pl edgu il ty bas edon a pl ea ag reem en t wi thth e Gov ern m en t” an d t he reb y all ow W al co ttto co m

m en t o n t he gu il ty ple a an d p le a ag reem en t i n c lo si ng arg um en t. Dur in g c lo si ng arg um en ts , W al co ttask edth e jury why Hol t h adno t t es ti fie d, an d cal le d the jury’ s at te nt io n t o Ho lt ’s pl ea ag reem en t. In reb ut ta l, the go ve rn m en t ad dr es se d t he is su e o f it s fa il ur e to cal l Ho lt , su gg es ti ng th atitdi d n otne edto cal l Hol t t o p ro ve it s ca se . The g ov ern m en t fu rth er i m pl ie d t ha t Ho ltwou ldno t
un de rm in e it s ca se be cau se he wou ldno t t es ti fy th atit s o th er wi tn es se s wer e lyin g whe n the y

tes ti fie d.
9Befo re the jury ch arg e, W al co ttreque st edhi s “ m is si ng wit ne ss ” in st ru ct io n

on e fi na l t im e, an d t he di st ric t co urt ag ai n d ecl in edto gi ve it . The jury fou nd W al co ttgu il ty on a ll ch arg es . II . DISCUSSI ON A. Mis si ng Wi tnes s J ury Ins truc tio n W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e th e “ m is si ng wit ne ss ” jury in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Lin k, 9 21 F.2d15 23 , 15 29 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). “ Fo r th e d en ia l o f a reque st edjury in st ru ct io n t o b e rev ers ib le erro r a d efen da ntm us t s ho w th atth e in st ru ct io n: (1) was aco rrec t st at em en t o f th e la w; (2 ) was no t ad equa te ly cov eredin th e in st ru ct io ns gi ve n t o th e jury; (3 ) co nc ern edanis su e so subs ta nt iv e th atit s o m is si onim pa ire d t he
accu se d’s ab il it y

to pre se nta de fen se ; an d (4 ) de al t wi th anis su e p ro pe rly befo re th e jury.” Unit edSta te s v . Dul ci o, 4 41 F.3d12 69 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. Thi s C ou rt p rev io us ly has ad dr es se d t he “ m is si ng witne ss ” jury ins tru ct io n. InUni te d S ta te s v . Naho om , 79 1 F .2d84 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) , we st at edth at“ [w]hen a wit ne ss is pe cu li arl y

wit hi n t he co nt ro l o f on e p art y , andth e wit ne ss ’ te st im on y wou ldelu ci da te fact s i n i ss ue , an i ns tru ct io n i s ap pr op ria te reg ard in g t he pe rm is si bl e in fere nc e whi ch th e jury m ay dra w fro m

th e p art y ’s fai lu re t o c al l t he
10wit ne ss .” Id . at 8 46 Add it io na ll y , bef or e th e jury ins tru ct io n c anbe gi ve n, t he pa rty requ es ti ng it“ m

us t es tabl is h t he po te nt ia l wi tn es s’ un av ai labi li ty in a ph y si cal or p ract ic al sen se ” an d “ th e p ot en ti al tes ti m on y m us t b e rel ev an t an d
no nc um ul at iv e.” J on es v. Ot is Elev at orCo ., 86 1 F .2d65 5, 6 59 (11 thCir . 19 88 ). InLin k, we cl ari fie d o ur“ m is si ng wit ne ss ” in st ru ct io n ju ris prud en ce b y rul in g t ha t

“ [w]e are aware of n o aut ho rit y requi rin g t he gi vi ng of a‘ m is si ng wit ne ss ’ in st ru ct io n t o t he jury if the so -cal le d m is si ng wit ne ss wou ldtes ti fy ag ai ns t t he in te res ts of t he de fen dant .” Lin k, 9 21 F.2dat 1 52 9. Inth is cas e, W al co ttha s n otsh own th atHol t’s t es ti m on y wou ldha ve be en fav or ab le to hi m , andth us we co nc lu de th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n fa il in g t o p res en t t he “ m is si ng witne ss ” in st ru ct io n. Se e id . W al co tt arg ue s t ha t Ho lt ’s tes ti m on y was “ li ke ly excu lp at ory ” b ecau se “ Hol t, an d o nl y Hol t, co ul d h av e te st ifi edas t o wh ethe r he alo ne was re sp on si bl e fo r po st in g t he adon Crai gs li st , andwhet he r he alo ne was i n c on tro l o f ‘M.S.’ as s he was in di sp ut ab l[y] on e o f ‘his gi rls ’, an d i n n o way un de r th e co nt ro l o f orop erat in g un de r [Walco tt ]. ” Whi le W al co ttass ert s tha t Ho ltwas l ik el y to tes ti fy th athe was in co nt ro l o f M.S. b ecau se M.S. te st ifi edth atsh e h adsex wit h Ho ltan d wo rk edas a p ro st itut e fo r hi m , th es e as se rti on s i n n o way sh ow t ha t Ho ltwou ldhave tes ti fie d th atW al co ttwas n otin vo lv edor t ha t Ho ltwou ldha ve tes ti fie d fa vo rab ly to
11W al co tt . As th e g ov ern m en t’s b rie f po in ts ou t, Walco ttat t ria l ex pe ct edth atHol t

wou ldtes ti fy

un fav or ab ly, an d a nt ic ip at edus in g e xt rin si c ev id en ce fo r im pe ach m en t p ur

po se s. In de ed , m os t o f W al co tt ’s arg um en ts at t ria l fo cu se d o n Hol t’s “ cred ib il ity

an d t ru th [si c] worth in es s,” n oton an y fav or ab le tes ti m on y

Hol t
m ig htpro vi de W al co tt . Bot h p art ie s an ti ci pa te d t ha t Ho ltwou ldin cu lp at e W al co tt , andth atW al co ttwant edHol t t o t ak e th e st an d o nl y so W al co ttco ul d im pe ach hi m . Giv enth e rec or d b efo re u s, a “ m is si ng wit ne ss ” in st ru ct io n was no t requi red
. B. Li m ita tio n o f Comm ent o n Fai lu re to Cal l H ol t W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s “ br oa d d is cret io n i n t he m an ag em en t o f th e tri al ” fo r “ a cl ear s ho win g o f ab us e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Hil li ard , 75 2 F .2d57 8, 5 82 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Gaba y , 92 3 F .2d15 36 , 15 41 (11 th Cir
. 19 91 ) (“ A tri al co urt h as bro addi sc ret io n i n h an dl in g atri al an d a n app el la te co urt wil l n otin te rv en e ab se nta cl ear s ho win g o f ab us e.”). Thu s, “ th e d is tri ctco urt wi ll
no t b e rev ers edforli m it in g s umm at io n a s l on g a s the de fen da ntha [d ] th e op po rtu ni ty to m ak e al l l eg al ly ten ab le arg um en ts th atare s up po rte d b y th e fac ts of th e cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gain es , 69 0 F .2d84 9, 8 58 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). W al co ttarg ue s t ha t, i n c lo si ng arg um en t, h e sh ou ldha ve be enall owe d t o ex pl ic it ly askth e jury to i nf er tha t Ho lt ’s tes ti m on y

wou ldha ve be enda m ag in g t o
12th e g ov ern m en t an d fa vo rab le to th e d efen se . Wha t Walco ttwant edto arg ue in

cl os in g i s t he same as h is pro po se d “ m is si ng wit ne ss ” jury ins tru ct io n. Be cau se th ere i s n o e vi de nc e in th is reco rdth atHol t’s t es ti m on y wou ldha ve be en da m ag in g t o t he go ve rn m en t o r fav or ab le to W al co tt , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n l im it in g Walco tt ’s clo si ng arg um en t. Mo reo ve r, W al co ttwas a ll owe d t o m ak e th e le ga l ar gu m en ts supp orte d b y th e fac ts inth e cas e. The d is tri ctco urt al lo wedhi m to “ arg ue to th is jury whe re i s Mr. Ho lt , why

wasn ’t he c al le d b y

th e Gov ern m en t, an d [t he di st ric t co urt i s] no t go in g t o h ear f

ro m th e Gov ern m en t s ay in g, wel l, wh y di dn ’t [W al co tt ] cal l [Ho lt ]. ” Inad di ti on , at n um ero us po in ts in hi s cl os in g a rg um en t, Walco ttto okth e op po rtu ni ty to co m

m en t o n t he go ve rn m en t’s fa il ur e to cal l Ho lt , forin st an ce b y hi gh li gh ti ng Hol t’s p le a ag reem en t an d e xp li ci tl y ask in g, “ So , why

di dn ’t th e Gov ern m en t ca ll Pas qu al e Hol t t o t es ti fy ? ” Thi s que st io n, am on g o th er ar gu m en ts W al co ttadva nc edin hi s cl os in g a rg um en t, al lo wedth e jury to d raw i ts own ne ga ti ve in fere nc e ag ai ns t t he go ve rn m en t as to whatHol t’s t es ti m on y m ig htha ve be en . Thu s, t he di st ric t co urt’s l im it at io ns on clo si ng arg um en t d idno t p rev en t W al co ttfro m

m ak in g “ al l l eg al ly ten ab le arg um en ts ,” an d i n fa ctall owe d h im to rep eat ed ly que st io n wh y

th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto cal l Ho ltto tes ti fy . Gain es , 69 0 F.2 d a t 8 58 . W e fi ndno ba si s i n t he reco rdto de te rm in e th atth e d is tri ctco urt
13ab us edit s d is cret io n i n l im it in g wh atW al co ttco ul d s ay in hi s cl os in g a rg um en t reg ard in g Ho lt ’s fai lu re t o t es ti fy
. C. Gra nt o f Imm uni ty to H ol t On ap pe al , W al co ttco nt en ds th at“ [t]he di st ric t co urt erredwhen itfai le d t o di sm is s t he Ind ic tm en t ag ai ns t [Walc ot t] as t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto imm un iz e Pas qu al e Hol t as a de fen se witne ss .” W e can fin d n o i ns ta nc e whe re Walco tt
m ad e th is arg um en t i n t he tri al reco rd , or m ov edto di sm is s t he in di ctm en t o n t hi s gr ou nd , so ou r rev ie w is forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Vall ejo, 2 97 F.3d11 54 , 11 64 -6 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (st at in g t ha t re vi ew is for pl ai n e rro r whe n ali ti ga ntha s fai le d t o ra is e an is su e in th e d is tri ctco urt). To es tabl is h p la in erro r, th e ap pe ll an t m us t s ho w: “ (1 ) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. If t he pre ced in g t hr ee co nd it io ns are m et , we m ay ex erci se di sc ret io n t o c orrecta fo rfei te d e rro r, bu t o nl y if (4 ) th e err or se rio us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d S ta te s v . McNai r, 60 5 F .3d11 52 , 12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 60 0 (2 01 1) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
.

“ Befo re an erro r is subjec t t o c orrect io n u nd er the pl ai n e rro r ru le , itm us t b e p la in
un de r co nt ro ll in g p rece de nt. . . .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Lett , 48 3 F .3d78 2, 7 90 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ).
14As t he go ve rn m en t’s b rie f po in ts ou t, the erro r W al co ttne ces sa ril y all eg es is

“ th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa il ur e to su a sp on te co m pe l t he Uni te d S ta te s t o g ran t Ho lt
us e imm un it y or t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t.” (un de rli ne ad de d) . W al co ttcan no t de m on st rat e th atth is is erro r, m uc h l es s p la in erro r; h e h as pro vi de d n o aut ho rit y fro m th is Cir cu itor t he Supr em e Co urt s ho win g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt m us t s ua sp on te di sm is s t he in di ct m en t u nd er the se cir cu m st an ces . Becaus e Walco ttha s n ot ci te d any con tro ll in g p rece de ntco nt rad ic ti ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng , th e err or he ass ig ns to th e d is tri ctco urt i s n ei th er “ ob vi ou s” no r “ cl ear u nd er cu rren t l aw.” See Un it edSta te s v . Hum ph rey, 16 4 F .3d58 5, 5 88 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d)
. 2 II I. CONCLUS IO N Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we affi rm W al co tt ’s con vi ct io ns . 3 AFFIRMED. Walcott relies primarily

on the Second Circuit’s de cision in United States v. Ebbers, 458 2 F.3d 110 ( 2d Cir. 2006), which a ddresse d the issue of whe ther de fenda nt-appe llant Ebbers “ was deprive d of a f

air trial whe n the g overnme nt refuse d to immuni ze cer tain witnesses.” I d. at 117. Howeve r, Ebber s is dist inguisha ble in one critical aspec t and instructive in another . First, nothing in Ebbe rs indicates that it was a plain er ror c ase. See id. at 118 (adoptingan abuse of discretion standa

rd of r eview f

or district court’ s ref

usal to forc e g overnme nt to gr ant immunity to defe nse witnesses) . Second, the Sec ond Circuit’s rulingin Ebbers we nt ag ainst the defe ndantappellant “ beca

use [he] has not shown that the absence of testimony by [t he witnesses] aff

ecte d the total mix of evide nce be fore the jury .” I d. at 120. B eca use Walcott has not shown that Holt’s testimony would have be en exculpatory , Holt’s testimony simil arly would not have a ltered the mix of evide nce be fore the jury . See id. at 119-20. On appe al, Walcott does not raise a ny sentenc ing issues. 3 15