FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 35 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 00 40 -SPM -AK-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us W ILLIAM SAMUEL YEARTY, a.k .a. Samm

y Yeart y , 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 fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 1 5, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, KRAVITCH an d F ARRIS , Cir cu itJu dg es . *
Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * designation.PER CURI AM:

W il li am Sam ue l Yea rty app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s fo ll owi ng a jury tria l fo r co rrupt ly accep ti ng or a gr eei ng to acce pta br ib e in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 6 66 (a)( 1) (B), co ns pi racy in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 37 1, an d m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts to th e FBI in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 00 1( a). W e h av e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, an d we a ffi rm . Yeart y co nt en ds he was e nt it le d t o am is tri al be cau se a go ve rn m en t ag en t’s te st im on y , whi ch su gg es te d h is de fen se co un se l h adals o b een en ga ge d i n c orrupt act iv it ie s, m at eri al ly prejud ic edhi m . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n in de nyin g Yea rty’ s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. N ews ome , 47 5 F .3d 12 21 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (rev ie win g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n) . The wi tn es s’ te st im on y was n otso pre

jud ic ia l as to be in curab le by the di st ric t co urt’s cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n. Se e id .; see al so Uni te d Sta tes v. O’K

eef e , 46 1 F .3d13 38 , 13 50 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (co m

m en ts th atim

pu gn edde fen se co un se l’s i nt eg rit y were re m ed ie d b y cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n) . In ad di ti on , bec au se th e rec or d c on ta in s s uf fic ie nt in de pe nd en t ev id en ce o f gu il t, Yearty cann otsh ow t ha t, b utforth e im pr op er rem ark s, t he ou tc om e o f th e tr ia l wo ul d b e d iff eren t. Se e Newso me , 47 5 F .3dat 12 27 . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g am is tri al . Yeart y als o c on te nd s t he di st ric t co urt erredinde nyin g h is m ot io n fo r 2jud gm en t o f acqui tt al as t o h is fal se st at em en ts co nv ic ti on , bec au se th e que st io ns

as ke d dur in g h is Aug us t 1 8, 2 00 8 F BI i nt erv ie w were fu nd am en ta ll y am bi gu ou s. W e rejectth e arg um en t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. S wi nd al l , 97 1 F .2d15 31 , 15 53 -5 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Des cen t , 29 2 F .3d70 3, 7 06 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al is rev ie wedde no vo ). The que st io ns po se d dur in g h is FBI i nt erv ie w were n otso am bi gu ou s t ha t “ m enof o rd in ary in te ll ig en ce” c ou ldno t ag ree a s t o t he ir m ean in g. Se e S wi nd al l , 97 1 F .2dat 1 55 3- 54 . Yearty ’s un de rs ta nd in g o f th e que st io ns was am at te r fo r th e jury to d eci de . The di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d t he m ot io n. Se e id . In a dd it io n, Yea rty con te nd s t he di stric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n to di sm is s t he fal se st at em en ts co un t o f th e in di ct m en t (C ou ntIII), ar gu in g t he st at em en ts all eg eddi d n otrel at e to a m at eri al m at te r withi n t he FBI’s jur is di ct io n. W e rejectYeart y ’s con te nt io n t ha t h is fal se st at em en ts were l eg al ly im m at eri al . The y pe rta in edto fact s fo rm in g t he ba si s o f th e FBI ’s fed eral bri be ry in ve st ig at io n. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dg er s , 46 6 U.S. 4 75 , 47 7, 4 81 -8 2, 1 04 S.Ct . 19 42 , 19 45 , 19 47 (19 84 ) (the st atut ory lan gu ag e o f § 1 00 1 “ cl earl y en co m pa ss es cri m in al in ve st ig at io ns co nduc te d b y th e FBI ”); 28 U.S.C. § 5 33 (1 ) (the FBI i s au th or iz ed“ to de te ctan d p ro se cu te cri m es ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s” ); Uni te d St at es v. Rob is on , 50 5 F .3d12 08 , 12 26 n.2 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 7) (de ni al of am ot io n 3to di sm is s i s re vi ewedforab us e o f di sc ret io n; un de rlyin g l eg al is su e is rev ie wed

de no vo ). The d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t he fal se st at em en ts co un t o f th e in di ct m en t was no t l eg al ly defec ti ve . 1 Yeart y als o 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 jud gm en t o f acqui tt al ba se d o n s uf

fic ie nc y of t he ev id en ce. Yeart y

ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce as to hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r br ib ery, co ns pi racy to a ccep t b rib es , m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts to th e FBI , andas t o h is affi rm at iv e d efen se of en trapm en t. A reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce al lo wedth e jury to fi nd Yeart y gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. McN ai r , 60 5 F .3d 11 52 , 11 95 -9 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 01 0) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Li ch en st ei n , 61 0 F .2d12 72 , 12 77 -7 8 (5 th Cir . 19 80 ), ab ro ga te d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga ud in ,

To the extent that Year

ty argues that Count I I Iis defec tive beca use it does not 1 sufficie ntly

alleg e enough to “stand on its own content without depende nce f or its validity

on the alleg ations of any

other c ount not ex pressly incorporated,” United States v. Sc hmitz , 634 F.3d 1247, 1261 (11th Cir. 2011), he ha s waived that argument beca use he did not ra ise it in the district court, see Ac cess Now, Inc. v . Sw. Airli nes Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 ( “This Court has repe atedly

held that an issue not ra ised in the district court and r aised for the first time in an appea l will not be considered by this court.”) ( quotation marks omitted). Althoug h Yea rty argued to the district cour t that Count I I Ishould be dismissed, his argument in that court wa s that the FB Icould not have jur isdiction because it did not ask the proper “ specific question to Def endant Ye arty

to establish the authority of the a g ency ,” and the ref ore “ the questioningby

the F.B .I . fail[ed] t o invoke a statutory basis as it does not relate to any specific offe nse within the jurisdiction of the F.B .I .” As we explained above, the district c ourt properly reje cted that argument beca

use Ye arty ’s fa lse statements we re material to the F BI ’s briber y investigation. The defic iency , if any , was that Count I I I did not include enough information to “stand on its own,” Schmitz , 634 F.3d at 1261, not that the FB Iwas inca pable of havingjurisdiction based on its line of questioning , but Year

ty did not raise that issue in the district cour t. 451 5 U.S. 5 06 , 50 9, 1 15 S.Ct . 23 10 , 23 13 (19 95 ) as rec ogni ze d i n Un it ed

Stat es v. Bof fi l-Ri ver a , 60 7 F .3d73 6,7 41 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 43 F.3d 2 61 8, 6 24 -2 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g Yea rty’ s m ot io n. Last ly, Yeart y

arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l “ ba se d upo n t he cu m ul at iv e effe ctof e rro rs at tria l.” W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al on ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Vi ca ri a , 12 F.3d19 5, 1 98 (11 thCir . 19 94 ). The d is tri ctco urt d id no t err in an y

of i ts rul in gs , letalo ne co m m itcu m ul at iv e err or s t ha t wo ul d e nt it le Yeart y to a ne w tri al . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Waldo n , 36 3 F .3d11 03 , 11 10 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ [B]ecau se no in di vi du al erro rs . . . ha ve be ende m on strat ed , no cu m ul at iv e erro rs can ex is t.”) . AFFIRMED.

Dec isions of the former

Fifth Circuit issued prior to Oc tober 1, 1981 a re c onsidered 2 binding pr ece dent on the Eleve nth Circuit. Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc) . 5