FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 14, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 03- 12554, 05- 11399

________________________ D . C . D ocketN os. 02 -002 49 -C R -B E -S 0 2 - 0 0 2 4 9 - C R - KO B - HG D U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D E W E Y M . H A M A K E R , L I N D A M . H A M A K E R , M O R G A N C I T Y C O N S T R U C T I O N , I N C ., D efen d an t s-A p p el l an t s C r o s s - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju l y 14, 2006)Honora ble Richard W. Goldberg , Judg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby designation. 2 B efo re H U L L , W IL S O N an d G O L D B E R G , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e: A p p e lla n ts D e w e y H a m a k e r , L in d a H a m a k e r , a n d M o r g a n C ity C on struct i on , Inc. (“ M C C ”) appeal thei r c on vi ct i on s f or bank fr aud and re l at ed of f e ns e s . T he gove rnm e ntc r os s - appe a l s both H a m a ke r s ’ 18- m onth s e nt e nc e s on the gr ounds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm i s c a l c ul a t e d the appl i c abl e s e nt e nc i ng G u i d el i n es ran g e. A ft er rev i ew an d o ral arg u m en t , w e affi rm A p p el l an t s’ c onvi c t i ons , va c a t e A ppe l l a nt s ’ s e nt e nc e s a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I . FA C TS A ppe l l a ntM C C w a s a n A l aba m a c ons truc t i on c om pa ny c o- ow ne d a nd m anaged by A pp el l ant s D ew ey H am akerand L i nd a H am aker . M C C ’ s pri nci pal cl i entw as C om m un i ty B ank, a f eder al l y i nsured fi nanci al i nst i tut i on headqu art er ed i n B l ount s vi l l e , A l aba m a . B e tw e e n 1995 a nd 2001, M C C pr ovi de d c ons truc t i on se rvi ce s f

or C om m un i ty B ank’ s bra nches i n A l abam a a nd T enness ee . I n a ddi t i on t o thi s w or k f orC om m uni ty B a nk, M C C a l s o w or ke d on va r i ous pe r s ona l pr oj e c t s f

orK e nnon P a tt e r s on, S e ni or( “ P a tt e r s on” ) , w ho w a s the C E O of C o m m u n ity B a n k . T h e w o r k M C C p e r f o rm e d f o rP a tte r s o n p e r s o n a lly b e g a n in 1 9 9 8 a n d to o k p la c e a t H e r ita g e V a lle y F a rm s , P a tte r s o n ’s 1 ,0 0 0 - a c r e h o r s e f a r m in3

B l ou nt svi l l e. M C C ’ s w ork i ncl ud ed the construct i on of barns, st abl es , an encl osed hor s e a r e na , s t or a ge bui l di ngs , a nd a 17, 000 s qua r e - f ootpe r s ona l r e s i de nc e f or P a tt e r s on. D u r in g th e tim e th a t M C C p e r f o r m e d c o n s tru c tio n w o r k a t C o m m u n ity B a nk’ s br a nc he s a nd on P a tt e r s on’ s pe r s ona l pr ope r ty , P a tt e r s on w a s the C E O a nd c ha i r m a n of

the boa r d of

C om m uni ty B a nk, a s w e l l a s the C E O a nd c ha i r m a n of the boa r d of

C om m uni ty B a nc s ha r e s ( “ B a nc s ha r e s ” ) , the hol di ng c om pa ny f or C o m m u n ity B a n k . L a rry B i s hop w a s C om m uni ty B a nk’ s V i c e P r e s i de ntof C ons truc t i on a nd M a i nt e na nc e a nd s e r ve d a s a n “ i n hous e ” ge ne r a l c ontr a c t orf orthe va r i ous C om m uni ty B a nk c ons truc t i on pr oj e c t s . O n be ha l f of C om m uni ty B a nk, B i s hop com m un i ca t ed w i th sub cont ac t ors s uch as M C C and app roved t he i nv oi ce s they subm i tt ed t o the B ank. A tthe sa m e t i m e, B i shop w as ac t i ng as the general c ontr a c t oron the H e r i t a ge V a l l e y F a r m s c ons truc t i on pr oj e c t s M C C pe r f or m e d f or P a tt e r s on. A s de t a i l e d be l ow , the c onvi c t i ons of A ppe l l a nt s a r i s e outof

the i rf r a udul e nt bi l l i ng of C om m uni ty B a nk f

orhundr e ds of

thous a nds of

dol l a r s w or th of construct i on se rvi ce s M C C perf orm ed for P att er son p er sonal l y a tH er i t age V al l ey F a r m s , r a the rtha n f

orC om m uni ty B a nk.4

A . M C C ’ s M a na g e m e nt U nd er st andi ng the subst ant i al evi dence agai nstA pp el l ant s r equi re s abri ef r e v ie w o f

M C C ’s o r g a n iz a tio n a n d r e c o r d - k e e p in g . A s c o - o w n e r s o f M C C , a s m a ll c ons truc t i on f

i r m , A ppe l l a nt s D e w e y H a m a ke ra nd L i nda H a m a ke rhe a de d the c o m p a n y ’s o p e r a tio n s a n d f in a n c ia l m a n a g e m e n t. D e w e y H a m a k e rp r in c ip a lly s u p e r v is e d M C C ’s c o n s tru c tio n a c tiv itie s , in c lu d in g a s s ig n in g w o r k e r s to p r o je c ts a nd m oni t or i ng the i ra c t i vi t i e s . L i nda H a m a ke rf oc us e d on M C C ’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i on an d acco u n t i n g ; h er resp o n si b i l i t i es i n cl u d ed reco rd i n g p aym en t s an d recei p t s, proces si ng payr ol l , generat i ng i nv oi ce s, and m anagi ng M C C ’ s off i ce st af f. F or payr ol l pu rposes , M C C re corded the nu m ber of hou rs w orked b y e ac h c o n s tru c tio n e m p lo y e e a n d th e lo c a tio n a t w h ic h th e e m p lo y e e p e r f o r m e d th e w o r k . M C C r e c or de d thi s a nd othe ra c c ount i ng i nf or m a t i on i n a c om put e r i z e d r e c or ds s y s t e m c a l l e d Q ui c kbooks . M C C ’ s Q ui c kbooks r e c or ds i nc l ude a n a c c ountf or e a c h of M C C ’ s c ons truc t i on pr oj e c t s , a nd thus M C C ’ s r e c or ds doc um e ntthe m a te r ia ls , lab o r , a n d o th e rc o s ts M C C in c u rr e d o n e a c h p a r tic u la rp r o je c t. S im ila r ly , M C C ’s in v o ic e s g e n e r a lly id e n tif ie d th e p r o

je c t to w h ic h th e b illab le a m ountw a s a ttr i but e d. B . M C C ’ s C h ar ge s t o C om m u n i t y B an kan d P at t e r s on B e tw e e n J a nua ry 1, 1998 a nd J ul y 15, 2000, M C C bi l l e d C om m uni ty B a nkDewey Ha maker t e sti fi e d th at MC C bi lle d Co mmunit y B ank fo r t hela bo r c os ts M CC 1 incur re d p lusa “bit of prof it. ”Hec lari fi e d th at a

50 % m ark

up ov e r l a bo r c os ts w a s p roba

bly acc eptable, a

nd that a 100% ma

rkup wa s “more tha

n fair.” 5 a n d r e c e iv e d f

r o m C o m m u n ity B a n k a to ta l o f $ 3 ,1 2 2 ,9 7 7 f

o rw o r k d o n e o n s ix C o m m u n ity B an k co n stru ctio n p rojects. T h is am o u n t rep re se n ted 9 3 % o f M C C ’s r e v e n u e o v e rth e p e r io d . O f th is m o r e th a n $ 3 m illio n M C C in v o ic e d to C om m uni ty B a nk, M C C ’ s i nvoi c e s a ttr i but e d $484, 750 t o M C C ’ s w or k on the s oc a lle d G u n te r s v ille p r o

je c t, th e c o n s tru c tio n o f a n e w C o m m u n ity B a n k b r a n c h in G u n te r s v ille , A lab a m a . D e s p ite th e n e a r ly h a lf

- a - m illio n d o lla r s in c h a r g e s M C C in v o ic e d to Co mmu n i ty Ba n k f

o rth e G u n t e r s v i l l e p r o

j e c t , M CC’ s r e c o r d s s h o w th a tM CC i ncurred onl y $30 , 02 6. 25 i n l abor cost s a tthe G un t er svi l l e proj ec tdu ri ng the sa m e t i m e p eri o d . A s D ew ey H am ak er t est i fi ed attri al , M C C b i l l ed o n a “ co stp l u s” ba s i s , a nd thus di r e c tl aborc os t s s houl d ha ve pr ovi de d a n a c c ur a t e be nc hm a r k f or M C C ’ s i nvoi c i ng. B y thi s m e a s ur e , how e ve r , M C C i nvoi c e d C om m uni ty B a nk 1 f o rm o r e th a n 1 6 0 0 % o f

th e lab o rc o s ts M C C a c tu a lly in c u rr e d a t th e G u n te r s v ille s i t e . A l though M C C ’ s e xtr e m e l y hi gh m a r k- up w a s m os tnot abl e i n the G u n te r s v ille a c c o u n t, M C C a ls o b ille d C o m m u n ity B a n k f o rb e tw e e n 3 2 5 % to 845% of the l aborc os t s M C C i nc urr e d a tf i ve othe rC om m uni ty B a nk c ons truc t i on pr oj e c t s be tw e e n 1998 a nd 2000.Prior to July 15 , 2 00 0, MCC s e nt P atters on tw o invo ic e s f

or theHeritag eValley

F arm s 2 work: a D ecember 28, 1998 invoicefor $37,500, a nd an April 21, 1999 invoice for $10,000. Patterson appa

rently paid only the sec ond invoice.

6 I n a ddi t i on, M C C ’ s r e c or ds s how tha tM C C i nc urr e d no l aborc os t s a ta l l on th e G u n t ersv i l l e p ro

j ectb etw een F eb ru ary 9 , 2 0 0 0 an d Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 . D esp i t e th i s, be tw e e n thos e da t e s M C C i nvoi c e d C om m uni ty B a nk f or , a nd r e c e i ve d pa y m e nt fr om C om m un i ty B ank o f, $1 78 , 50 0 for w ork p urpo rt edl y don e a tG un t er svi l l e. In st ark con tra stt o M C C ’ s c harges t o C om m un i ty B ank, ov erthe tw o-and-aha l f y e a r s f r om J a nua ry 1, 1998, t o J ul y 15, 2000, M C C r e c e i ve d onl y $10, 000 f r o m Pa tt e r s o n f

o rw o r k M CC p e r f

o r me d a tH e r i t a g e V a l l e y Fa r ms . M CC 2 r e c e i ve d thi s s m a l l a m ountde s pi t e the f a c ttha t , a c c or di ng t o M C C ’ s Q ui c kbook r e c or ds f ortha tpe r i od, M C C e m pl oy e e s w or ke d ove r61, 000 hour s a tH e r i t a ge V a l l e y Fa r ms , i n c u rr i n g a t o t a l l a b o rc o s to f $ 6 9 1 , 3 5 9 . 5 8 . Th u s , d u r i n g th e s a me tim e f r a m e in w h ic h M C C b ille d C o m m u n ity B a n k o v e r1 6 0 0 % o f th e lab o rc o s ts a tthe G unt e r s vi l l e pr oj e c t , M C C r e c e i ve d f r om P a tt e r s on l e s s tha n 1. 5% of the l ab o r co st s ath i s H eri t ag e V al l ey F arm s. A tthe e nd of

e ve ry y e a r , A l aba m ac ons truc t i on f i r m s m us ts ubm i tt o the S t a t e of A l aba m a a r e s pons e t o a c ontr a c t or ’ s que s t i onna i r e l i s t i ng ongoi ng m a j or construct i on proj ec t s. L i nd a H am akerprepar ed M C C ’ s c on tra ct or’ s quest i on nai re an d su b m itted itto th e s tate o n M C C ’s b eh alf o n D ec em b er3 1 , 1 9 9 9 . M C C ’s7

1 9 9 9 c o m p le te d q u e s tio n n a ir e lis te d f o u rC o m m u n ity B a n k p r o je c ts a s its o n ly m a j orj obs i n pr ogr e s s , i nc l udi ng G unt e r s vi l l e . M C C di d noti nc l ude a ny l i s t i ng f orH e r i t a ge V a l l e y F a r m s ora ny othe rw ork f orP a tt e r s on. C . C om p l ai n ts b y th e C om m u n i ty B an kB oa rd In th e sp ri n g o f 2 0 0 0 , m em b ers o f C o m m u n i ty B an k ’ s b o ard o f d i rect o rs – M i ch ael A l red , W ayn e W ash am , G eo rg e B arn ett , an d M i ch ael B ean (w h o w as al so C om m uni ty B a nk’ s C hi e f F i na nc i a l O f

f i c e r ) – be c a m e c onc e rne d tha tde s pi t e the B ank’ s s i gn i fi cantou t l ay s f or the G un t er svi l l e proj ec t , very l i tt l e progres s app ea re d to h a v e b e e n m a d e a t th e G u n te r s v ille s ite . T h e s e b o a r d m e m b e r s r a is e d th e ir concerns f

orm al l y a tC om m un i ty B ank’ s board m ee t i ng on June 20 , 20 00 . T hey n o te d th a t d e s p ite a ll th e m o n e y s p e n t o n th e G u n te r s v ille p r o je c t, ab s o lu te ly nothi ng ha d be e n bui l ta bove gr ound. P a tt e r s on r e s ponde d by a s s ur i ng the r e s tof the bo ar d thatthe expenses w er e j ust i fi ed, and h e r equest ed thatthe bo ar d con du ct a f u ll a c c o u n tin g o f

th e p r o je c t’s p r o g r e s s . A ft erthe bo ar d m em bers l oo ked i nt o the G un t er svi l l e proj ec tfurther, they e x p r e s s e d f

u r th e rc o n c e rn a t a B a n c s h a r e s b o a r d m e e tin g o n J u ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 0 , a n d a t a se cond C om m un i ty B ank b oard m ee t i ng on Jul y 18, 20 00 . A pp el l antD ew ey H a m a ke ra tt e nde d both m e e t i ngs . A tthe m e e t i ngs , D e w e y H a m a ke ra s s ur e d the boa r d m e m be r s tha tM C C w a s notbi l l i ng C om m uni ty B a nk f ora ny w or k done on8

P a tt e r s on’ s hom e a tH e r i t a ge V a l l e y F a r m s , a nd he a s s e r t e d tha tM C C “ di d not c h a r g e e x p e n s e s to P a tte r s o n ’s h o u s e e x c e p t ab o u t e v e ry s ix m o n th s .” T w o hour s a f

t e rthe J ul y 18, 2000 boa r d m e e t i ng, P a tt e r s on c a l l e d a m e e t i ng o f th e C o m m u n ity B a n k b o a r d ’s E x e c u tiv e C o m m itte e , a s u b c o m m itte e o f th e f u ll bo ar d. A tthatm ee t i ng , P att er son rec om m ended t he di sm i ss al of bo ar d m em bers M i c ha e l A l r e d a nd M i c ha e l B e a n. O n S e pt e m be r28, 2000, C om m uni ty B a nk r e m ove d A l r e d, B e a n, a nd B a rne ttf r om i t s boa r d of

di r e c t or s . O n N ove m be r10, 2000, C om m uni ty B a nk t e r m i na t e d the e m pl oy m e ntof B e a n a nd A l r e d. S h o r tly a f

te rth e a lle g a tio n s o f

im p r o p r ie ty in J u ly 2 0 0 0 , M C C m a r k e d ly c h a n g e d its b illin g p r a c tic e s f o rth e w o r k a t H e r ita g e V a lle y F a r m s . B e f o r e J u ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 0 , M C C h a d in v o ic e d P a tte r s o n o n ly tw ic e a n d h a d r e c e iv e d f r o m h im o n ly $10, 000. I n the f

ol l ow i ng f

i ve m onths , how e ve r , M C C s e ntP a tt e r s on tw e nty - ni ne in v o ic e s to ta lin g o v e r$ 4 6 0 ,0 0 0 . D . I n ve s t i gat i on an d L e gal A c t i on W h ile th e B a n c s h a r e s b o a r d w a s m e e tin g o n J u ly 1 5 , 2 0 0 0 , th e M a r s h a ll Co u n ty Sh e r i f

f’ s D e p a r tme n ts e a r c h e d M CC’ s o f f i c e , s e i z i n g i t s c o mp u t e r s , t i me s he e t s a nd othe rr e c or ds . T he s e r e c or ds r e ve a l e d the c os ta nd bi l l i ng pa tt e rns de s c r i be d a bove . I n a ddi t i on, M C C ’ s r e c or ds s how e d tha ton hundr e ds of o c c a s io n s , c h a r g e s th a t M C C h a d b ille d to C o m m u n ity B a n k w e r e d e s c r ib e d inOne of MCC’s financial reports (date d November 9, 1998) unquestionably

showed that 3 MCC was billi ngCommuni ty Ba nk for wor

k done for

Patterson. On that report, the name s of Communi ty

Ba nk construction proje cts were written by hand next to numerous entries listing labor c osts and expenses incurre d at Heritag e Valley Fa rms. MCC admini strative employee Tina Rog ers testified that she made the se notes at Linda Hamaker’ s direction. As of Jul y

15, 2000, the identical c ost and expense entrie s appea r in MCC’s official rec ords, but instead of be ing attributed to Heritag e Valley Fa rms, they areattributed to the Communi ty

Ba nk projec ts named in the handwritten notes. In her te stimony , L inda Hama ker attempted to expl ain these entries by claimingthat she 4 had tra nsfer red thecosts beca

use she “ just wanted to see what it looked like in the computer.” She denied ever invoicingCommuni ty Ba nk for thesecharg es, although she ac knowledg ed that sh enever c or

re c te d th ee ntrie s. 9 M C C ’ s r ec ords w i th n ot at i on s s uch as “ F arm ” or “ H V F , ” r evea l i ng thatthe w ork h a d a c tu a lly b e e n p e r f

o r m e d a t H e r ita g e V a lle y F a r m s . I n h e rte s tim o n y a t tr ia l, 3 Li n d a H a ma k e ra c k n o w l e d g e d tr a n s f e rr i n g c o s t s i n c u rr e d a tH e r i t a g e V a l l e y Fa r ms t o C o m m u n i ty B an k acco u n t s. 4 I n l a t e 2000, s e ve r a l B a nc s ha r e s s ha r e hol de r s f i l e d a de r i va t i ve a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha tP a tt e r s on, B i s hop, the H a m a ke r s , a nd M C C f r a udul e nt l y us e d ba nk fund s f or no n-bank pu rposes , pri nci pal l y the construct i on atH er i t age V al l ey F arm s. In re spon se , C om m un i ty B ank and B ancs hare s f orm ed a “ S peci al L i t i ga t i on C om m i tt e e ” a nd hi r e d a tt orne y W i l l i a m L a f f e r ty t o i nve s t i ga t e the a lle g a tio n s . O n M a y 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , L a f

f e r ty in te r v ie w e d D e w e y a n d L in d a H a m a k e rto g e th e r . D e w e y H a m a ke rt ol d L a f f e r ty tha tM C C ha d ne ve rbi l l e d C om m uni ty B a nk f or w o r k d o n e a t H e r ita g e V a lle y F a r m s . D e w e y H a m a k e ra c k n o w le d g e d to L a f f e r tyAcc ordingto the g overnment at oral a rgument, Patterson and B ishop weretried and 5 c o nv i c t e d s ep arat e l y. 10 th a tM CC g e n e r a l l y b i l l e d o n a “ c o s tp l u s ” b a s i s , b u ta s s e r t e d t o La f f e r ty th a tM CC h a d p l a n n e d t o r e f

r a i n f r o m b i l l i n g Pa tt e r s o n f

o rth e w o r k a tH e r i t a g e V a l l e y Fa r ms u n til th e c o m p le tio n o f

th e p r o je c t. L in d a H a m a k e rm a d e n o s ta te m e n ts to L a f f e r ty e i the rc onf

i r m i ng orc ontr a di c t i ng he rhus ba nd’ s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of M C C ’ s bi l l i ng p ract i ces. In O ct o b er, 2 0 0 1 , F B I ag en t s ex ecu t ed a search w arran tatth e H am ak ers’ re si dence. A s the F B I a gent s e nt er ed the H am aker s’ ho use, D ew ey H am aker c o m p la in e d , “w h y a m I th e o n ly o n e b e in g p u n is h e d a n d lo s in g p r o p e r ty in th is th in g ? I w a s n ’t th e o n ly o n e in v o lv e d in th is s c h e m e .” I I . P RO CE DU RA L HI S T OR Y O n A ugus t30, 2002, a f e de r a l gr a nd j ury i n the N or the rn D i s tr i c tof A l abam a r eturned a three -c ou ntsupers edi ng i nd i ctm entagai nstA pp el l ant s D ew ey H a m a ke r , L i nda H a m a ke r , a nd M C C . C ountO ne of the i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d the 5 A ppe l l a nt s w i th c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tba nk f r a ud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 2, 3 7 1 , 1 0 0 5 a n d 1 3 4 4 . C o u n t T w o c h a r g e d A p p e lla n ts d ir e c tly w ith b a n k f r a u d , in v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § § 2 an d 1 3 4 4 . C o u n tT h ree so u g h tfo rfei tu re o f atl east $ 1 ,6 8 5 ,0 0 0 in a lle g e d p r o c e e d s o f th e b a n k f

r a u d p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) .11

A j ury tr i a l be ga n on O c t obe r21, 2002. A f t e rthr e e da y s of

de l i be r a t i on, on Oc t o b e r3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , th e j u ry f o u n d Ap p e l l a n t s g u i l ty o f C o u n t s On e a n d T wo . On O c t obe r31, 2002, the j ury r e turne d a f or f e i tur e ve r di c tof

$178, 500 on C ount T hree . A . Po s t - Tr i a l M o t i o ns O n N ove m be r8, 2002, A ppe l l a nt s f i l e d, pur s ua ntt o F e de r a l R ul e s of C ri m i nal P roce du re 29 and 3 3, a j oi ntm ot i on se eki ng j ud gm ent s of a cqui tt al or, a l t e rna t i ve l y , a ne w tr i a l . A m ong othe ra r gum e nt s , A ppe l l a nt s c ont e nde d tha tthe e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntf ora ny r e a s ona bl e j ury t o ha ve f ound them gu i l ty bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . S ee F ed. R . C ri m . P . 29 . O n N ov em ber 20, 2002, A ppe l l a nt s f

i l e d a n a m e nde d ve r s i on of the s a m e m ot i on. O n F e brua ry 4, 2003, the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d both the N ove m be r8, 2002 m ot i on a nd the N ove m be r20, 2002 a m e nde d m ot i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound

“ tha tthe gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d m or e tha n a de qua t e e vi de nc e on a l l e l e m e nt s of the of f e ns e s . ” H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our ta l s o f e l t“ c om pe l l e d t o c om m e nta boutthe nu m er ou s a l l egat i on s a gai nstthese defe nd ant s a nd the evi dence s ub m i tt ed. ” A c c or di ng t o the di s tr i c tc our t , the gove rnm e nt“ r e pe a t e dl y f oc us e d on a lle g a tio n s o f

a g r a n d c o n s p ir a c y ” b e tw e e n th e H a m a k e r s , P a tte r s o n a n d B is h o p . I n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s vi e w , how e ve r , the gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o pr ove thi s gr a ndEffe ctive November 1, 2001, the provisions of § 2F1.1 were de leted and inc orporated 6 into § 2B1.1. However, thePSI s applied the 1998 Guide lines, and no par ty raises a n issue on a pp e al a s towh at vers ion

of theGuide lin e s toa

pp ly . A c c ording ly, all Guide lin e s c itatio ns in thi s opinion

re fer to th e19 98 Guide lin e s. 12 c o n s p ir a c y . I n s te a d , “[ w ]ith th e e x c e p tio n o f in v o ic e s f

o rth e G u n te r s v ille [ p r o je c t], th e G o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t th e in v o ic e s s u b m itte d w e r e n o t, i n fac t , for w ork p er form ed on B ank p roj ec t s. ” N ever thel es s, the di stri ctcourt“ concl ud e[ d] thatthe go vernm entpres ent ed m or e tha n a m pl e e vi de nc e of the de f e nda nt s ’ i nvol ve m e nti n a s c he m e t o de f r a ud C om m un i ty B ank, bu ton l y r egar di ng the G un t er svi l l e B ra nch w ork. ” T he di stri ct co u rt in terp re ted th e ju ry ’s fo rf eitu re v er d ict as c o n firm atio n th at th e g o v er n m en t’ s c a s e w a s p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab le d o u b t o n ly w ith r e s p e c t to th e G u n te r s v ille pr oj e c t . T he di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha tw hi l e the gove rnm e nts oughta f or f e i tur e of o v e r$ 1 .6 m illio n , th e ju ry ru le d in s te a d th a t th e A p p e lla n ts s h o u ld f o r f e it o n ly $ 1 7 8 ,5 0 0 , “th e p r e c is e a m o u n t o f th e in v o ic e s th e [ A p p e lla n ts ] s u b m itte d to C om m un i ty B ank for the G un t er svi l l e proj ec taf t eral l w ork ceas ed on that p r o je c t.” B. Se nt e nc i ng O n M ar ch 27 , 20 03 , the U . S . P robat i on O ff i ce subm i tt ed P re se nt ence In v est i g at i o n R ep o rt s (“ P S Is”) fo r each A p p el l an t . T h e P S Is reco m m en d ed a b ase of f e ns e l e ve l of

6, s e e U . S . S . G . § 2F 1. 1( a ) , a nd a tw o- l e ve l r ol e e nha nc e m e ntf or 613

m o re th an m i n i m al p l an n i n g , see U . S . S . G . § 2 F 1 . 1 (b )(2 )(A ). T h e P S Is al so es t i m at ed thatC om m un i ty B ank h ad suff er ed approx i m at el y $2, 00 0, 00 0 i n l osse s as a r es ul tof A pp el l ant s’ cr i m i nal cond uct . A cc ordi ng l y, the P S Is re com m ended th a tth e Ap p e l l a n t s b e a s s i g n e d a twe l v e - l e v e l l o s s e n h a n c e m e n t , s e e U. S . S . G. §2 F 1. 1(b)(1)(M ), and a four-l evel enhancem entfor gross re ce i pt s of over $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 f

r o m a n o f

f e n s e a f f e c t i n g a f i n a n c i a l i n s t i tu t i o n , s e e U. S . S . G. §2 F 1. 1(b)(7)(B). A t ot al adj ust ed offens e l evel of 24 re sul t ed i n a G ui del i nes r a n g e o f 5 1 to 6 3 m o n th s . B ef ore s ent enci ng , ho w ever , the di stri ctcourtdi re ct ed the P robat i on O ff i ce to am en d th e P S Is to re flec t a lo ss fig u re o f $ 1 7 8 ,5 0 0 , th e a m o u n t o f th e ju ry ’s f o r f e itu r e v e r d ic t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p la in e d th a t “b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l, the gove rnm e ntf

a i l e d t o pr ove a l os s a m ount ” of ove r$2, 000, 000. A $178, 500 lo s s c a lc u la tio n w o u ld w a rr a n t o n ly a s e v e n - le v e l lo s s e n h a n c e m e n t, s e e U .S .S .G . § 2 F1 . 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( H ) , a n d n o e n h a n c e me n tf o rg r o s s r e c e i p t s o f

o v e r$ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 f

r o m a f i na nc i a l i ns t i tut i on. T hus , the a m e nde d P S I s r e c om m e nde d a t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of 1 5 , w ith a r e s u lta n t G u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 1 8 to 2 4 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. T he di s tr i c tc our the l d a s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng on M a y 6, 2003. T he go vernm entpres ent ed evi dence i n sup po rtof i t s c l ai m ed l oss a m ou ntof ov er $2 , 00 0, 00 0, bu tthe di stri ctcourtw as no tpers uaded. T he di stri ctcourtse tt l ed14

up on a l oss a m ou ntof $1 78 , 50 0, expl ai ni ng that“ because the on l y a l l egat i on s that the gove rnm e ntpr ove d a ttr i a l be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubti nvol ve d the G unt e r s vi l l e pr oj e c t , . . . the c our tm us tde t e r m i ne the l os s i nc urr e d by the ba nk on th a t p r o je c t, n o t th e to ta l lo s s . . . .” A ft eradop t i ng the l oss a m ou ntfr om the am ended P S Is , the di stri ctcourt s e nt e nc e d D e w e y H a m a ke ra nd L i nda H a m a ke rt o 18 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd ordered them t o p ay re st i tut i on i n the am ou ntof $1 78 , 50 0. T he di stri ctcourt s e nt e nc e d M C C t o a one - y e a rt e r m of pr oba t i on. C . A ppe a l a nd R e m a nd A ppe l l a nt s t i m e l y appe a l e d the i rc onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s on M a y 12, 2 0 0 3 . W h i l e th e ap p eal w as p en d i n g , th e g o v ern m en trev eal ed t o A p p el l an t s a nu m ber of docum ent s r el at ed t o the ca se thati ti nadv ert ent l y had fa i l ed t o p rodu ce pri or t o tri al . O n D ec em ber 1, 20 03 , A pp el l ant s f i l ed a m ot i on i n thi s C ou rt re qu es t i ng thatappel l at e procee di ng s be s t ay ed, and t he ca se re m anded t o d i stri ct c our t , t o a l l ow A ppe l l a nt s t o f i l e a r e ne w e d m ot i on f

ora c qui tt a l on the gr ounds th a t th e ird e f

e n s e w a s p r e

ju d ic e d b y th e w ith h o ld in g o f th is e v id e n c e . O n D ecem b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 , th i s C o u rtd en i ed w i th o u tp rej u d i ce A p p el l an t s’ m ot i on f orr e m a nd. R a the rtha n r e m a nd, w e gr a nt e d A ppe l l a nt s ’ m ot i on t o s t a y the ap p e a l, a n d in s tru c te d A p p e lla n ts to f ile in d is tr ic t c o u r t, w ith in f o u r te e n d a y s , a15

m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rthe de ni a l of A ppe l l a nt s ’ m ot i on f

ora c qui tt a l . O n J a nua ry 7, 2 0 0 4 , A p p e lla n ts jo in tly f ile d , in d is tr ic t c o u r t, a “R e n e w e d M o tio n f o rA c q u itta l” base d o n the w i thh el d m at er i al evi dence. O n F e brua ry 26, 2004, the di s tr i c tc our tr e f e rr e d A ppe l l a nt s ’ m ot i on t o a m a g is tr a te ju d g e f

o rf u ll b r ie f in g a n d r e v ie w . O n M a y 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , th e m a g is tr a te j udge i s s ue d a l e ngthy R e por ta nd R e c om m e nda t i on ( “ R & R ” ) , r e c om m e ndi ng tha tA ppe l l a nt s ’ m ot i on be de ni e d. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge c onc l ude d tha tthe doc um e nt s i n i s s ue w e r e notw i thhe l d by the gove rnm e nti n ba d f a i th, tha tm a ny of the w i thh el d d ocum ent s w er e notfa vo rabl e t o A pp el l ant s, and t hatA pp el l ant s had fa i l ed t o sho w any r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thatthe ou t com e of thei r tri al w as a f f e c te d b y th e f

a ilu r e to d is c lo s e th e r e m a in in g d o c u m e n ts . A f t e rr e c e i vi ng the R & R , the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a n or de ron O c t obe r18, 2 0 0 4 , ad v i si n g th i s C o u rtth at , al th o u g h i td i d n o ti n t en d t o g ran t“ th e p reci se r e l i e f ” s oughtby A ppe l l a nt s , the di s tr i c tc our tbe l i e ve d tha ta m or e “ thor ough a na l y s i s of

the i s s ue s ” r a i s e d by the A ppe l l a nt s w a s w a rr a nt e d. A c c or di ngl y , on N o v e m b e r1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , w e r e m a n d e d th e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o ra c o m p le te r e s o lu tio n o f

A p p e lla n ts ’ r e n e w e d m o tio n f o ra c q u itta l. O n J a nua ry 19, 2005, the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a n or de rove rrul i ng A p p el l an t s’ o b

j ect i o n s t o th e R & R , ad o p t i n g th e R & R , an d d en yi n g A p p el l an t s’16

r e n e w e d m o tio n f

o ra c q u itta l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d , h o w e v e r , th a t it o n ly

“ a dopt [ e d] the f

a c tua l a nd pr oc e dur a l r e c i t a t i ons , the l e ga l a na l y s i s , a nd the [ m a gi s tr a t e ’ s ] c onc l us i on tha tthe s uppr e s s e d doc um e nt s w e r e notm a t e r i a l t o the [ A p p e lla n ts ’] c o n v ic tio n s r e la te d to th e G u n te r s v ille p r o je c t.” ( E m p h a s is in or i gi na l ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e i t e r a t e d i t s e a r l i e rf i ndi ng tha t“ the G ove rnm e nt fa i l ed t o p re se ntevi dence s uffi ci entt o est abl i sh beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthat [A pp el l ant s] conspi re d t o o r def raud ed the B ank o n any ot her proj ec t s or a ny other bi l l s [ other than G un t er svi l l e] . ” T he di stri ctcourtem ph as i ze d thati t s a do pt i on of the R & R w as predi ca t ed on the fa ctthatthe w i thh el d d ocum ent s bore l i tt l e r el at i on shi p t o the evi dence c o n c e rn in g th e G u n te r s v ille p r o je c t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p la in e d th a t if it “e rr e d in f i ndi ng i na de qua t e e vi de nc e t o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on orr e qui r e c ons i de r a t i on of the b r o a d e rc o n s p ir a c y a lle g a tio n s in s e n te n c in g , th e n a m o r e th o r o u g h a n a ly s is s h o u ld be do ne concerni ng the supp re ss ed do cum ent s a s aw ho l e a nd the cum ul at i ve ef fe ct th a t in f o r m a tio n c o u ld h a v e h a d o n th o s e b r o a d e ris s u e s a t tr ia l.” T he A ppe l l a nt s t i m e l y appe a l e d the de ni a l of the i rr e ne w e d m ot i on f or a c qui tt a l . O n S e pt e m be r22, 2005, w e va c a t e d nunc pr o tunc ourN ove m be r16, 20 04 order r em andi ng A pp el l ant s’ ori gi nal appeal t o the di stri ctcourt , and g ra nt ed A ppe l l a nt s ’ m ot i on t o c ons ol i da t e the i rappe a l w i th r e s pe c tt o the r e ne w e d m ot i onWe reviewthe denial of a re quest for a

particula r jury instruction for abuseof discretion. 7 United States v. Yeag er, 331 F .3d 1216, 1222 (11th Cir. 2003). 17 t o acq u i tt al w i th th ei r o ri g i n al ap p eal o f th e co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. I I I . AP P E AL OF CO NV I CT I ON S A pp el l ant s c hal l enge thei r c on vi ct i on s on fou r groun ds: (1) thatthe di stri ct co u rterred b y refu si n g t o i n stru ctth e j u ry reg ard i n g th e l aw o f ap p aren tau th o ri ty; ( 2 ) th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to d is c lo s e c e r ta in d o c u m e n ts to th e d e f e n s e p r io rto tri al ; (3) thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y a l l ow i ng an F B I f i nanci al anal ys tt o t es t i fy a s a la y w itn e s s ; a n d ( 4 ) th a t in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t. T he s e i s s ue s a r e a ddr e s s e d i n turn. A . Ju r y I n s t r u c t i on A pp el l ant s c l ai m thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y r ef usi ng t o i nstructthe j ury on the l aw of agency a nd apparentautho ri ty. A ttri al , the ce ntra l defe nse theory 7 w a s tha tA ppe l l a nt s bi l l e d C om m uni ty B a nk onl y a s di r e c t e d by B i s hop, C om m un i ty B ank’ s V i ce P re si dent . A cc ordi ng t o A pp el l ant s, B i shop , w ho ac t ed a s ge ne r a l c ontr a c t orf

orM C C ’ s pr oj e c t s both f orC om m uni ty B a nk a nd f or P a tte r s o n , in s tru c te d M C C a s to h o w to b ill C o m m u n ity B a n k f o rth e p r o

je c ts . A p p e lla n ts a r g u e d th a t th e y r e a s o n ab ly a s s u m e d th a t B is h o p , a s C o m m u n ity B a n k ’s a g e n t, h a d th e a u th o r ity to s p e a k f o rth e B a n k w ith r e s p e c t to b illin g . A pp el l ant s c on t end t hatthey di d n otdefr aud t he B ank b ec ause even i f theySpecifically , defense counse l reque sted the followingcharg e: 8 An ag ent is one who is authorized to act on behalf or in the plac e of a nother. That authority may be express or may

be implied by

circumstance. Third parties de aling with an ag ent are entitled to rely on statements and representation to a third per son by writt e n o r sp oke n wo rd s or any oth er c on du c t of theprinc ipal which, re a so na bly interpreted, cause s the third person to be lieve that the principal consents to acts a nd repre sentatio ns do neon

hisbehalf

by thepers on

purp or tingto ac t f

or him . 18 w r o n g f u lly b ille d C o m m u n ity B a n k f o rP a tte r s o n ’s p e r s o n a l p r o je c ts , th e y m e r e ly bi l l e d the ba nk i n a c c or da nc e w i th the i ns truc t i ons of i t s a ge nt , B i s hop. T o sup po rtthi s def

ense theory, defe nse c ou nsel re qu es t ed thatthe di stri ct c our ti ns truc tthe j ury on the l a w of appa r e nta uthor i ty . T he r e que s t e d c ha r ge w ou l d h ave t ol d the j ury thatw hen a party dea l s w i th the autho ri ze d agentof a pr i nc i pa l , the pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o r e l y on the a s s um pt i on tha tthe a ge nts pe a ks on the pr i nc i pa l ’ s be ha l f

a nd tha tthe pr i nc i pa l c ons e nt e d t o the a c t s a nd r e pr e s e nt a t i ons m a d e b y th e a g e n t. 8 T he di stri ctcourtchose t o i ss ue a “ go od fa i th” i nstruct i on ra ther than an

“ appa r e nta uthor i ty ” i ns truc t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d tha ta l though the re qu es t ed apparentautho ri ty c harge corr ec t l y s t at ed the l aw of agency, the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t b e lie v e th e p r o p o s e d c h a r g e w a s a c o rr e c t s ta te m e n t o f la w ap p lic a b le t o a cri m i n al frau d case. B el i ev i n g th atth e p ro p o sed ch arg e w o u l d m erel y co n fu se th e ju ry , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in s te a d in s tru c te d th e ju ry w ith r e s p e c t to “in te n t to defr aud” and t he “ go od fa i th” defense . S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourti nstruct edThe Eleventh Circuit has adopted a s binding pre cedent all of the dec isions of the former 9 F if th C irc uit ha nd e d down p ri or

to t hec los eof

bu sin e ss o n September 3 0, 19 81 . B onner v . Ci ty of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc). 19 tha t“ [ a ] de f

e nda nta c t s w i th i nt e ntt o de f r a ud i f the de f e nda nta c t e d know i ngl y a nd w i th the spec i fi c i nt entt o d ec ei ve . . . . ” T he di stri ctcourtfurther i nstruct ed that

“ [ g] ood f a i th i s a c om pl e t e de f

e ns e t o the c ha r ge s i n the i ndi c tm e ntbe c a us e good f a i th on the pa r tof

the de f e nda nti s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th i nt e ntt o de f r a ud or w illf u ln e s s th a t is a n e s s e n tia l e le m e n t o f th e c h a r g e s .” T he di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on no tt o i nstructon apparentautho ri ty, bu tra ther to in s tru c t r e g a r d in g a g o o d f a ith d e f e n s e to a lle g a tio n s o f

f r a u d , w a s e n tir e ly corr ec t . A l tho ug h the re qu es t ed charge w as an ac cura t e s t at em entof agency l aw as appl i e d t o c i vi l c ontr a c tdi s put e s , the i ns truc t i on w oul d ha ve be e n m i s l e a di ng t o the j ury i n thi s c r i m i na l c a s e c ha r gi ng ba nk f r a ud. T he a ge ntof

a f i na nc i a l i ns t i tut i on i s ne ve re m pow e r e d t o a uthor i z e a f r a ud on the i nst i tut i on . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. G re go ry , 73 0 F . 2d 69 2, 70 1 (11 th C i r. 1984) ( s t a t i ng tha ta ba nk’ s boa r d of di r e c t or s “ c a nnotva l i da t e a f r a ud on the bank ”) ; se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. A ub i n, 87 F . 3d 14 1, 14 8 (5t h C i r. 19 96 ) ( sa m e) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. S al i nas, 65 4 F . 2d 31 9, 32 8 (5t h C i r. U ni tA A ug . 19 81 ) (s am e) , 9 o v e rru le d in p a r t o n o th e rg r o u n d s , U n ite d S ta te s v . A d a m s o n , 7 0 0 F .2 d 9 5 3 ( 5 th C i r . U ni tB 1983) ; 18 U . S . C . § 656 ( c r i m i na l i z i ng e m be z z l e m e ntorm i s appl i c a t i on20

o f b a n k f u n d s b y a b a n k ’s e m p lo y e e s o ra g e n ts ) . C h a r g in g th e ju ry th a t a p a r ty is e nt i t l e d t o r e l y on a n a ge nt ’ s s t a t e m e nt s w oul d ha ve w r ongl y i m pl i e d tha ts o l ong a s B i s hop i ns truc t e d A ppe l l a nt s i n the m a nne rtha tthe y bi l l e d C om m uni ty B a nk, Ap p e l l a n t s we r e n e c e s s a r i l y i n n o c e n to f c o n s p i r a c y a n d f

r a u d a n d th e i ro wn know l e dge a nd i nt e ntdi d notm a tt e r . O n the c ontr a ry , the f a c ttha ta de f

a l c a t i ng a ge ntof the ba nk i ns truc t e d A ppe l l a nt s doe s notpr ove tha tA ppe l l a nt s a r e i nnoc e nt of de f r a udi ng the ba nk. B is h o p ’s r o le in g u id in g A p p e lla n ts ’ b illin g p r a c tic e s w a s r e le v a n t o n ly in the se nse thathe prov i ded A pp el l ant s w i th a po ss i bl e goo d fai th d ef ense . If B i s hop’ s a c t i ons l e d A ppe l l a nt s t o the hone s tbe l i e f tha tthe y w e r e notde c e i vi ng C o m m u n ity B a n k , th e y la c k e d th e r e q u ir e d m e n s r e a to b e f o u n d g u ilty o f

f r a u d . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. B apt i st a- R od ri gu ez , 17 F . 3d 13 54 , 13 68 n. 18 (11t h C i r. 19 94 ). B i s hop’ s s t a tus a s a n a ge ntof the ba nk w a s noti n que s t i on; the que s t i on putt o the j ury w as w hether B i shop ’ s c on du ctl ed A pp el l ant s t o the go od fa i th b el i ef thatthey w e r e bi l l i ng appr opr i a t e l y , orw he the rA ppe l l a nt s kne w tha tthe y w e r e de c e i vi ng the B a nk. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s good f a i th i ns truc t i on a de qua t e l y a nd c o rr e c tly c h a r g e d th e ju ry r e g a r d in g th e k e y le g a l q u e s tio n w ith r e s p e c t to A pp el l ant s’ theory of defe nse. A s i t s ver di ctdem on stra t es , the j ury s i m pl y r ej ec t ed th atth eo ry.21

B . F ai l u re to D i sc l ose E vi d en ce 1) W i th h el d D ocu m en ts O n N ove m be r6, 2003 – r oughl y a y e a ra f t e rA ppe l l a nt s w e r e c onvi c t e d – the gove rnm e ntdi s c ove r e d a num be rof doc um e nt s f

r om the i nve s t i ga t i on of A p p el l an t s th ati ti n ad v ert en t l y h ad fai l ed t o p ro d u ce p ri o r t o tri al . T h ese do cum ent s w er e m em oranda and o ther m at er i al re l at ed t o the go vernm ent ’ s pre tr i a l i nt e r vi e w s of

c e r t a i n w i tne s s e s . U pon di s c ove r i ng the m a t e r i a l , the gove rnm e ntnot i f

i e d A ppe l l a nt s ’ c ouns e l a nd pr ovi de d A ppe l l a nt s w i th c opi e s of a ll o f th e p r e v io u s ly w ith h e ld m a te r ia l. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d A ppe l l a nt s ’ r e ne w e d pos t - tr i a l m ot i on ba s e d on the w i thhe l d doc um e nt s . A ppe l l a nt s now r e a s s e r tthe a r gum e nt s f r om tha tm ot i on, c ont e ndi ng tha tthe m a t e r i a l w a s w i thhe l d i n vi ol a t i on of B r a dy v. M a ry l a nd, 373 U . S . 83, 87, 83 S . C t . 1194, 1196- 97 ( 1963) ( e s t abl i s hi ng a pr e tr i a l gove rnm e nt d u ty to d is c lo s e to d e f

e n d a n t a ll e v id e n c e m a te r ia l to g u ilt o rp u n is h m e n t) a n d /o rin vi ol at i on of the Je ncks A ct , 18 U . S . C . § 3 50 0 (re qu i ri ng thaton ce a w i tness has t e s t i f i e d on di r e c te xa m i na t i on, the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ovi de de f e nda ntw i th a ny r e la te d s ta te m e n ts b y th a t w itn e s s ) . I n de ny i ng A ppe l l a nt s ’ pos t - tr i a l m ot i on, the di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d i n f ul l the l e ngthy R & R r e c om m e ndi ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tr e j e c tA ppe l l a nt s ’ B r a dy a nd22

J e n c k s A c t a r g u m e n ts . T h e R & R e x a m in e d e a c h o f th e w ith h e ld d o c u m e n ts in grea tdet ai l , concl ud i ng that : (1) m ostof the m at er i al di d n otqu al i fy as ei ther B r a d y o rJ e n c k s A c t m a te r ia l; a n d ( 2 ) to th e e x te n t th a t th e w ith h e ld d o c u m e n ts d id q u a lif y a s e ith e rB r a d y o rJ e n c k s A c t m a te r ia l, th e n o n - d is c lo s u r e o f th e d o c u m e n ts di d n otprej ud i ce A pp el l ant s a nd there fore di d n otw arra ntany r el i ef . S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ue no- S i e rr a , 99 F . 3d 375, 379- 80 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C o n ro y, 5 8 9 F . 2 d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 7 3 (5 th C i r. 1 9 7 9 ). T h e d i scu ssi o n o f A p p el l an t s’ B r a d y a n d J e n c k s A c t a r g u m e n ts in th e R & R , a d o p te d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, is c om pr e he ns i ve a nd w e l l r e a s one d. W e a gr e e tha tm os tof the m a t e r i a l w a s not B r a dy orJ e nc ks A c tm a t e r i a l a ta l l , a nd tha tnon- di s c l os ur e of thi s m a t e r i a l di d not p rej u d i ce A p p el l an t s i n an y w ay. I n a d d itio n , a lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p o in te d o u t th a t n o n e o f th e w ith h e ld doc um e nt s r e l a t e d t o the G unt e r s vi l l e pr oj e c ta nd s e e m e d t o de c i de the B r a dy a nd J e n c k s A c t c la im s p r im a r ily o n th a t b a s is , w e d o n o t s o lim it o u rr e v ie w a n d ru lin g . W e c o n c lu d e th a t A p p e lla n ts h a v e f a ile d to s h o w p r e

ju d ic e f r o m th e w ith h e ld do cum ent s i n con nect i on w i th any and al l as pect s of the charges i n C ou nt s O ne, T w o a n d T h r e e , in c lu d in g b u t n o t lim ite d to th e G u n te r s v ille a lle g a tio n s . A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d A p p e lla n ts ’ p o s t-Be causeAppellants’ post-trial motion fails on the merits, we nee d not consider the 10 prop e r re lie f h a d th e ir

motion su c c e e de d. As theg ov e rnment p oints o ut, ho wever, a new tri al, not an ac quittal, would ordinarily be the proper remedy

for violations of B rady

or the Jencks Ac t. 23 tr i a l m ot i on. 10 2 ) I nf

o r m a nt St a t us A pp el l ant s a l so ra i se on e c om pl ai ntof fa i l ure t o d i sc l ose e vi dence thatw as no tdi sc usse d i n the R & R adop t ed by the di stri ctcourt . A pp el l ant s c on t end t hat th e d i stri ctco u rtab u sed i t s d i scret i o n b y al l o w i n g T o n y K i t ch en s t o t est i fy as a gove rnm e ntw i tne s s de s pi t e the gove rnm e nt ’ s f a i l ur e t o di s c l os e K i t c he ns ’ s s t a tus a s a c o n f id e n tia l in f

o r m a n t in a n u n r e la te d c r im in a l in v e s tig a tio n in a n o th e rs ta te . T h is a r g u m e n t is w h o lly w ith o u t m e r it. O n the day before K i t chens w as sc hedu l ed t o t es t i fy , the go vernm entfi l ed an ex part e m ot i on di sc l osi ng t o the di stri ctcourtthatK i t chens w as a c on fi dent i al i nf or m a nti n a n i nve s t i ga t i on out s i de of A l aba m a . T he gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on re qu es t ed a rul i ng thatdi sc l osure of K i t chens’ s c on fi dent i al i nform antst atus w as n o tr e q u i r e d b y Fe d . R. Cr i m. P. 1 6 , Br a d y , o rG i g l i o v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 4 0 5 U . S. 150 ( 1972) . T he gove rnm e nta s s e r t e d tha tbe c a us e K i t c he ns ne i the rr e c e i ve d nor w as offe re d any benefi tfr om t es t i fy i ng i n A pp el l ant s’ tri al , hi s s t atus as an i nf or m a nti n a n unr e l a t e d m a tt e rw a s note xc ul pa t ory i m pe a c hm e nte vi de nc e . T he g o v e rn m e n t a ls o a s s e r te d th a t d is c lo s u r e o f K itc h e n s ’s r o le to A p p e lla n ts w o u ld24

effecti v el y d i scl o se th e i n fo rm at i o n t o th e p u b l i c, th ereb y en d an g eri n g K i t ch en s’ s a f e ty . T he gove rnm e ntnot e d tha tK i t c he ns w a s a c t i ng a s a n i nf or m a nti n a m a

j or d ru g tr a f f ic k in g in v e s tig a tio n a n d th a t K itc h e n s h a d b e e n th r e a te n e d b y p e o p le b el i ev ed t o b e i n v o l v ed i n th atd ru g traffi ck i n g act i v i ty. T h e d istrict co u rt en tere d an ex p ar te o rd erg ra n ti n g th e g o v er n m en t’ s m ot i on, f i ndi ng tha tK i t c he ns ’ s s t a tus a s a n i nf or m a ntw a s noti nf

or m a t i on tha tthe gove rnm e ntw a s r e qui r e d t o di s c l os e t o the de f e ns e unde rR ul e 16, B r a dy , or Gi g l i o , a n d a l s o f

i n d i n g th a td i s c l o s u r e wo u l d e n d a n g e rKi t c h e n s ’ s s a f e ty . As such, K i t chens t es t i fi ed w i tho utre veal i ng , or bei ng qu es t i on ed abou t , hi s s t atus as an i nform ant . H ow ever , du e t o an acci dent al di sc l osure by the di stri ctcourtcl erk du ri ng tri al , A pp el l ant s l ea rned of K i t chens’ s r ol e i n the un re l at ed cr i m i nal i nv es t i gat i on af

t erhe had t es t i fi ed i n A pp el l ant s’ tri al bu tbefore the j ury de l i be r a t e d. A pp el l ant s i m m edi at el y c om pl ai ned t hatK i t chens’ s t es t i m on y w as t ai nt ed by hi s ong oi ng rol e a s ago vernm enti nform anti n the un re l at ed cr i m i nal i nve s t i ga t i on, a nd the y m ove d t o s tr i ke hi s t e s t i m ony . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on , bu tagre ed t o i ss ue a j ury i nstruct i on re l at ed t o K i t chens’ s t es t i m on y. In tha ti ns truc t i on, the di s tr i c tc our ti nf or m e d the j ury tha tK i t c he ns w a s a gove rnm e nt in f o r m a n t in a s e p a r a te m a tte ra n d d ir e c te d th e ju ry to e x a m in e h is te s tim o n y w ithAppellants do not appe ar to a rgue that the district cour t’s ex parte rulingon the 11 g overnment’s motion was erroneous bec ause it wa s ex parte, i.e. pure ly beca use Appe llants were excluded from arguing ag ainst the motion in camera . Appellants argue only that the substance of therulingits e lf

wa s an a bu seof dis c retio n. Ev e n a ssumingthey c omp lain o f t

hee x part e natureof the ruling , we note that Rule 16(d)(1) expressly permits this exparteproce dure. See F e d. R. C rim. P . 1 6( d) (1 ) ( statingthat a dis tric t c ourt

“ ma y permit a pa rt y to s ho w g oo d c a

us e [fo r n ot p ro du c ingoth e rwisedis c ov e ra blee vide nc e ] by

a writt e n s tate ment t

hat th ec ourt

wi ll inspect ex parte” ). 25 “g r e a te rc a r e a n d c a u tio n th a n th e te s tim o n y o f o r d in a ry w itn e s s e s .” O n ap p eal , A p p el l an t s arg u e th atth e g o v ern m en t ’ s fai l u re t o d i scl o se K i t c he ns ’ i nf

or m a nts t a tus t o the m pr i ort o K i t c he ns ’ t e s t i m ony w a rr a nt s the gr a nt o f a n e w tr ia l. I m p lic itly , A p p e lla n ts a r g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d iscr etio n b y ru li n g th at th e g o v er n m en t w as n o t req u ired to d isclo se K it ch en s’s i nf or m a nts t a tus pr i ort o hi s t e s t i f y i ng. W e ne e d notr e a c h the m e r i t s of the 11 di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng be c a us e i n a ny e ve ntA ppe l l a nt s ha ve f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a ny p rej u d i ce ari si n g fro m th atru l i n g an d A p p el l an t s’ resu l t i n g i n ab i l i ty t o cro ssexam i ne K i t chens r egar di ng hi s s t atus as a gov ernm enti nform anti n an u nrel at ed m a tte r . F i r s t , K i t c he ns ’ s s t a tus a s a gove rnm e nti nf or m a nti n a drug pr os e c ut i on t a ki ng pl a c e out s i de of

A l aba m a a nd c om pl e t e l y unr e l a t e d t o thi s c a s e w a s not e xc ul pa t ory e vi de nc e i n A ppe l l a nt s ’ c a s e a nd w a s , a tm os t , m a r gi na l i m pe a c hm e nt evi dence. A tthe t i m e of A pp el l ant s’ tri al , K i t chens had no pend i ng cr i m i nal c h a r g e s , w a s n o t o n p a r o le o rp r o b a tio n , a n d w a s n o t a t r is k o f b e in g p r o s e c u te d in26

r e l a t i on t o thi s c a s e . T hus , a s poi nt e d outi n the gove rnm e nt ’ s e x pa r t e m ot i on, no pe ndi ng m a tt e re xi s t e d i n w hi c h the gove rnm e ntc oul d pr ovi de f a vor abl e tr e a tm e nt t o K i t chens, and K i t chens w as no tprom i se d o r off er ed any ki nd of spec i al co n si d erat i o n i n ex ch an g e fo r h i s t est i m o n y. In ad d i t i o n , K i t ch en s h ad a p ast cr i m i nal re cord thatthe go vernm entdi d d i sc l ose t o A pp el l ant s a nd w i th w hi ch A pp el l ant s’ coun se l i m peac hed K i t chens a ttri al . T hu s, any possi bl e a dd i t i on al i m pe a c hm e ntt o be ga i ne d f r om que s t i oni ng K i t c he ns on hi s s t a tus a s a gove rnm e nt in f o r m a n t in a n u n r e la te d m a tte rin a n o th e rs ta te w a s w e a k a t b e s t. S e c ond, A ppe l l a nt s di s c ove r e d K i t c he ns ’ s i nf or m a nts t a tus dur i ng tr i a l a nd c o n v in c e d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to o f f e ra c a u tio n a ry in s tru c tio n . T h u s , d e s p ite gr a nt i ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s pr e - tr i a l m ot i on nott o di s c l os e K i t c he ns ’ s s t a tus , the di s tr i c tc our ti t s e l f

e ve ntua l l y hi ghl i ght e d K i t c he ns ’ s r ol e a s a gove rnm e nt i nform ant , and t he courti nstruct ed the j ury t o exam i ne hi s t es t i m on y w i th g re at er c a ut i on. G i ve n tha tK i t c he ns s t ood t o ga i n nothi ng f r om t e s t i f

y i ng f orthe g o v e rn m e n t in A p p e lla n ts ’ c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to in s tru c t th e ju ry to approach hi s t es t i m on y w i th car e w as exce edi ng l y c aut i ou s. R egar dl es s, the fa ct th a t th e c o u r t e f

f e c tiv e ly to ld th e ju ry to b e w a ry o f K itc h e n s ’s c r e d ib ility ac com pl i shed the exacti m peac hm entgo al A pp el l ant s w ou l d h ave s ou gh thad t hey b een ab l e t o cro ss-ex am i n e K i t ch en s ab o u th i s i n fo rm an tst atu s.27

T h ir d , K itc h e n s w a s a m in o rw itn e s s in th e c a s e . K itc h e n s te s tif ie d p r im a r ily i n s uppor tof

the a l l e ga t i on tha tA ppe l l a nt s ha d pur c ha s e d a m ot or c y c l e f or p e r s o n a l u s e , a n d th e n b ille d C o m m u n ity B a n k f o rth e c o s t o f

th e m o to r c y c le a s if i tw e r e a n e xpe ns e on a C om m uni ty B a nk c ons truc t i on pr oj e c t . K i t c he ns di d not te s tif y r e g a r d in g H e r ita g e V a lle y F a r m s , th e G u n te r s v ille p r o je c t, o rM C C ’s o v e r a ll b i l l i n g p ract i ces, cl earl y th e cen tral fo cu ses o f th e ch arg es ag ai n stA p p el l an t s. A l l thr e e of

the s e r e a s ons r e a di l y di s t i ngui s h thi s c a s e f r om thos e c i t e d by A pp el l ant s, i n p art i cul arU ni t ed S t at es v. C rum l ey , 56 5 F . 2d 94 5 (5t h C i r. 19 78 ), th e o n ly c o n tr o llin g p r e c e d e n t c ite d b y A p p e lla n ts th a t is e v e n a r g u ab ly r e le v a n t. I n C rum l e y , the de f

e nda ntL e o C rum l e y w a s c ha r ge d w i th r e c e i vi ng a nd s t or i ng a st ol en m ot or vehi cl e. Id. at94 6. O ne of the go vernm ent ’ s m osti ncul pat ory w i tne s s e s , G . J . H a y ne s , t e s t i f i e d t o C rum l e y ’ s e f

f or t s t o c onc e a l a nd di s pos e of the st ol en vehi cl e a tH ay nes’ s s al vage l ot . Id. at94 8. O n app ea l , w e vac at ed C rum l ey ’ s c on vi ct i on and o rder ed a new tri al because the di stri ctcourthad p r e v e n te d C ru m le y ’s c o u n s e l f r o m im p e a c h in g H a y n e s ’s te s tim o n y o n th e b a s is th a t h e w a s m o tiv a te d to h e lp th e g o v e rn m e n t b e c a u s e h e s to o d to b e n e f it f r o m h is t e s t i m ony . I d. a t949. S pe c i f i c a l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tha l t e d the c r os s - e xa m i na t i on o f H a y n e s a b o u t w h e th e rh e f e a r e d b e in g p r o s e c u te d b e c a u s e th e o f f ic ia ls i nv es t i gat i ng C rum l ey ’ s m ot or vehi cl e thefthad al so foun d a st ol en C adi l l ac at28

H a y ne s ’ s s a l va ge l ot . I d. T h e d is tin c tio n s b e tw e e n C ru m le y a n d o u rc a s e a r e m a te r ia l. F ir s t, w h ile K i t chens had no thi ng t o g ai n from t es t i fy i ng agai nstA pp el l ant s, the st ol en C adi l l ac f o u n d o n H a y n e s ’s p r o p e r ty c o u ld h a v e b e e n th e b a s is f o rc h a r g e s a g a in s t H a y n e s . T h erefo re, H ayn es h ad a cl ear, sel f-i n t erest ed m o t i v at i o n fo r t est i fyi n g ag ai n st C rum l e y , a m ot i va t i on a r i s i ng outof the ve ry c i r c um s t a nc e s of the i nve s t i ga t i on of C rum l ey . In com pari son, K i t chens’ s i nv ol vem enti n a t ot al l y unrel at ed cr i m i nal i nve s t i ga t i on bor e no r e l a t i ons hi p t o A ppe l l a nt s ’ c ha r ge s w ha t s oe ve r , a nd K i t c he ns fa ce d n o ri sk of cr i m i nal l i abi l i ty r el at ed t o h i s t es t i m on y i n A pp el l ant s’ ca se . S e c ond, w he n C rum l e y ’ s c ouns e l a tt e m pt e d t o que s t i on H a y ne s a boutthe s to le n C a d illa c , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o t o n ly s u s ta in e d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s o b je c tio n to tha tl i ne of

que s t i oni ng, the c our ta c tua l l y i ns truc t e d the j ury t o “ di s r e ga r d the i nfer ence ” thatthe st ol en C adi l l ac and t he re l at ed threa tof prosec ut i on had m o tiv a te d H a y n e s to te s tif y o n b e h a lf

o f th e g o v e rn m e n t. I d . O u rc a s e p r e s e n ts th e e x ac t o p p o site: h er e, th e d istrict co u rt ca u ti o n ed th e ju ry to co n sid erK it ch en s’s t es t i m on y c ar ef

ul l y. T hi s i nstruct i on , i n w hi ch the courtes se nt i al l y i m peac hed K i t chens’ s t es t i m on y on b ehal f of the A pp el l ant s, m i ni m i ze d any po ss i bl e harm cau sed b y A p p el l an t s’ i n ab i l i ty t o cro ss-ex am i n e K i t ch en s. T hi r d, unl i ke K i t c he ns – a m i norw i tne s s a ga i ns tA ppe l l a nt s – H a y ne s , the“We review for abuse of discretion the district cour t’s decisions re g ardingthe 12 admissibili ty

of expert testimony

and the reliability

of an e xpert opinion.” United States v. 29 w itn e s s in C ru m le y , w a s in te g r a l to th e p r o s e c u tio n . S e e id . a t 9 5 0 . A c c o r d in g to the C rum l e y C our t , “ H a y ne s ’ t e s t i m ony w a s a n i m por t a ntf a c t ori n the go vernm ent ’ s c as e a nd w e c anno tfi nd beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthati f the j ury ha d notbe l i e ve d H a y ne s i tw oul d notha ve a c qui tt e d C rum l e y . ” I d. I nde e d, the s ubj e c tof

c r os s - e xa m i na t i on tha tC rum l e y ’ s c ouns e l w a s f orbi dde n t o pur s ue – the f a c t th a t a s to le n v e h ic le w a s a ls o f o u n d a t H a y n e s ’s lo t – w a s p o te n tia lly p iv o ta l to C rum l e y ’ s de f

e ns e , be c a us e i tm i ghti m pl y tha tH a y ne s , notC rum l e y , w a s the one i n v o l v ed i n b u yi n g an d sel l i n g st o l en v eh i cl es. F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , th e n o n - d is c lo s u r e o f K itc h e n s ’s in f

o r m a n t s ta tu s p r io rto tr ia l c le a r ly d o e s n o t w a rr a n t a r e - tr ia l. C . T esti m o n y B y F B I A n a l y st F B I F in an cial A n alys t N o rm an “P ete” O d o m (“O d o m ”) , th e g o v er n m en t’ s pr i m a ry w i tne s s a ttr i a l , t e s t i f i e d a tl e ngth c onc e rni ng M C C ’ s f i na nc i a l a nd bu si ness re cords. A l tho ug h O do m i s atra i ned fi nanci al anal ys tw i th tw enty- three y e a r s o f e x p e r ie n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p e r m itte d O d o m to te s tif y a s a la y w itn e s s . A p p el l an t s co n t en d th atO d o m sh o u l d h av e b een cl assi fi ed as an ex p ertw i tn ess, a n d th a t A p p e lla n ts w e r e p r e ju d ic e d b e c a u s e p r io rto tr ia l, th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t p ro v i d e A p p el l an t s w i th a su m m ary o f O d o m ’ s ex p ertt est i m o n y. 12Frazier, 387 F .3d 1244, 1258 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) ; see also Agro Air Assoc s., Inc. v.

Houston Cas. Co., 128 F.3d 1452, 1455 (11th Cir. 1997) (district c ourt’s admission of lay opinion evidenceis reviewe d for a buse of discretion).

30 T he go vernm entt i m el y di sc l osed t o A pp el l ant s thatO do m w ou l d b e a g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s . P r io rto tr ia l, th e g o v e rn m e n t a ls o p r o v id e d to A p p e lla n ts a ll of the evi dent i ary docum ent s thatw ou l d b e the basi s of O do m ’ s t es t i m on y, w hi ch i n a ny c a s e w e r e a l m os te xc l us i ve l y doc um e nt s tha tO dom ha d a c qui r e d f r om A pp el l ant s i n the fi rs tpl ac e. H ow ever , the go vernm entdi d n otdecl ar e O do m as an e x p e r t w itn e s s , a n d d id n o t p r o v id e A p p e lla n ts w ith a p r e - tr ia l s u m m a ry o f h is e xpe c t e d t e s t i m ony . M or e ove r , unt i l the f i r s tda y of

tr i a l , the gove rnm e ntdi d not pr oduc e s e ve r a l s um m a ry c ha r t s the gove rnm e nti nt e nde d t o i ntr oduc e dur i ng O d o m ’s te s tim o n y . B e c a us e the gove rnm e ntpr oduc e d O dom ’ s s um m a ry c ha r t s onl y on the m orni ng of

the f i r s tda y of

tr i a l , the di s tr i c tc our te xc l ude d thos e c ha r t s f r om e vi de nc e . T he di s tr i c tc our ta s ke d rhe t or i c a l l y , “ [ h] ow c a n the r e be a f a i rtr i a l f or the de f e nda nti f the de f e ns e a tt orne y i s notgi ve n a ke y e xhi bi tpr i ort o the m orni ng o f tr ia l? ” E v e n s o , o v e rA p p e lla n ts ’ o b je c tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a llo w e d O d o m to te s tif y a s a la y w itn e s s . A p p e lla n ts c o n te n d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on be c a us e O dom e f f e c t i ve l y t e s t i f

i e d a s a n e xpe r ta nd s houl d notha veWe rejec t Appellants’ contention that by excluding thesechar

ts, the district court 13 e ff e c tiv e ly rule d th at O do m c ould n ot t e sti fy a s a n e xpe rt . Thedis tric t c ourt e xclude d th ec ha

rt s solely due to their lateproduction, and took no position on whether Odom was re quired to testify as an e xpert until ruling that Odom could testify as a la y witness. Rul e16 , D isc ov e ry

and Inspe c tio n, state s in

re le va nt p art : 14 (a) Gover nment’s Disclosure . (1) Information Subject to Disclosure . (G) Expe rt

Witn e sse s. At thede fendant’ s re qu e st, theg ov e rnment s hall disc los eto the defendant a written summary of testimony the g overnment intends to useunder Rules 702, 703, or

705 of the F ederal Rules of Evidenc e duringits case- in-chief at trial. I f the g overnment reque sts discovery under s ub d i v ision (b)(1)( C)(ii) and the defendant complies, the g overnment must, at the defendan t ’s request, giveto the defendant a written summary of testimony

the g overnment intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 as evidence at trial on the iss u e o f the de fenda nt’s mental condition. The summary provided under thi s subparagraph must desc ribe the witness’s opinions, the bases a nd re asons for thoseopinions, and the witness’s qu alif ic atio ns . Fe d. R. Crim. P . 16. 31 b een al l o w ed t o d o so w i th o u tth e req u i red d i scl o su res. 13 A c c or di ng t o the F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e , “ [ i ] f

s c i e nt i f i c , t e c hni c a l , or other s peci al i ze d k no w l edge w i l l as si stthe tri erof fa ctt o u nd er st and t he evi dence o rto d e te r m in e a f

a c t in is s u e , a w itn e s s q u a lif ie d a s a n e x p e r t b y k n o w le d g e , s k ill, e xpe r i e nc e , tr a i ni ng, ore duc a t i on, m a y t e s t i f y the r e t o i n the f

or m of a n opi ni on or otherw i se . . . . ” F ed. R . E vi d. 70 2. W here the go vernm entpl ans t o p re se ntexpert te s tim o n y in a c r im in a l tr ia l, th e g o v e rn m e n t is r e q u ir e d to s u b m it to a d e f e n d a n t a

“ w ri tt en sum m ary” of the expect ed t es t i m on y. S ee F ed. R . C ri m . P . 16 (a )( 1)(G ). 14 Th e c e n tr a l p u rp o s e o f

O d o m’ s t e s t i mo n y w a s t o p r o v e th e f a c tth a tM CC bi l l e d C om m uni ty B a nk f orw or k M C C pe r f

or m e d f orP a tt e r s on. H ow e ve r , O dom di d nott e s t i f

y t o thi s f

a c tba s e d on hi s f

i na nc i a l e xpe r t i s e , nordi d he e xpr e s s a ny32

expertop i ni on i n h i s t es t i m on y. R ather, O do m si m pl y r evi ew ed and sum m ar i ze d o v er sev en th o u san d fi n an ci al d o cu m en t s, p ri m ari l y M C C ’ s Q u i ck b o o k s reco rd s, t i m e s heet s, i nv oi ce s, and check stub s. In hi s t es t i m on y, O do m fa ctual l y des cr i bed M C C ’s r e c o r d s a n d th e n m a tc h e d a s m a ll s u b s e t o f th e v o lu m in o u s p a y r o ll, acco u n t i n g , an d i n v o i ce reco rd s. F ore xa m pl e , O dom t e s t i f i e d tha tM C C ’ s t i m e s he e t s r e c or de d the num be rof hour s w or ke d by e m pl oy e e s on non- C om m uni ty B a nk pr oj e c t s s uc h a s H e r i t a ge V al l ey F arm s. O do m then exp l ai ned t hatM C C ’ s Q ui ckbo ok s r ec ords i ncl ud ed pa y r ol l e ntr i e s f

ore a c h M C C e m pl oy e e w ho w or ke d on the non- C om m uni ty B a nk proj ec t s. O do m m at ched the ho urs f rom the em pl oyee s’ t i m e s heet s t o i dent i ca l payr ol l entri es i n the Q ui ckbo ok s r ec ords. B y m at chi ng these re cords, O do m w as ab l e t o t est i fy t o th e factth ati n Q u i ck b o o k s, M C C h ad co d ed th e em p l o yees’ p a y r o ll a m o u n ts to C o m m u n ity B a n k p r o je c ts r a th e rth a n to th e n o n - C o m m u n ity B a n k p r o je c ts lis te d o n th e tim e s h e e ts . Ba s e d o n M CC’ s o w n i n v o i c e s a n d c a s h e d c h e c k s , O d o m t e s t i f i e d th a tM CC se nti nv oi ce s t o C om m un i ty B ank for the w ork d on e by these em pl oyee s, even th o u g h th e tim e s h e e ts s h o w e d th a t th e w o r k w a s n o t d o n e f o rC o m m u n ity B a n k . O dom a l s o pr e s e nt e d t o the j ury hi s s um m a t i ons of the t ot a l num be rof

hour s f r om the t i m e s heet s and other r ec ords. O do m ca l cul at ed the l abor costt o M C C for e ac hWhen consideringAppellants’ motion to treat Odom a s an expert witness, the district 15 court allowed Appellants to ask Odom que stions about his expecte d testimony . Odom explained hiswo rk a s f oll ow s: [R ]eviewingthose time sheets, which a re very elementa ry, they area nameand hours and do ll ar

amounts , Ic an ’ t s ay

th at wh at I

h av ele ar n e d o v e r th etw e nty- f

o ur ye ars [I ’ve be en a f

inancial a nalyst] would be nec essar y to add and subtract. . . . if you are sim ply loo kingat a

stac k o f timesh e e ts and you want to kn owho w m any ho ur s a particula r individual worked a

t a cer tain location over a two and a half year period, you simply

flip a pag e and hit the a d d i n g machine. . . . I f the F BI provides me a computer a

nd a data base a nd asked that Iuse that, then c ertainly that would save tim eand prob a bly prov idea be tter p ro du c t.

33 of i t s proj ec t s, and then t es t i fi ed concerni ng the ac tual am ou nt s M C C bi l l ed C o m m u n ity B a n k f

o rth o s e p r o

je c ts . O d o m u s e d a n E x c e l s p r e a d s h e e t to c a lc u la te so m e o f th ese fi g u res. C o n tr a ry to A p p e lla n ts ’ c o n te n tio n , th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to c e r tif y O d o m a s a n e x p e r t w itn e s s a n d c o m p ly w ith R u le 1 6 ( a ) w ith r e s p e c t to O dom ’ s t e s t i m ony . T o pr e pa r e f orhi s t e s t i m ony , O dom s i m pl y a dde d a nd subtra ct ed nu m bers fr om a l on g cat al og ue of M C C re cords, and t hen com pare d th o s e n u m b e r s in as tr a ig h tf o rw a r d f a s h io n . A s O d o m h im s e lf e x p la in e d a t tr ia l, w hi l e hi s e xp ert i se and t he use of c om pu t ersoftw ar e m ay have m ade hi m m ore e f f i c i e nta tr e vi e w i ng M C C ’ s r e c or ds , hi s r e vi e w i t s e l f w a s w i thi n the c apa c i ty of any r ea sonabl e l ay pers on . T here fore , O do m ’ s t es t i m on y w as perm i ss i bl e l ay 15 t e s t i m ony unde rR ul e 701 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e . S e e F e d. R . E vi d. 701 (a l l ow i ng l ay t es t i m on y a s t o o pi ni on s or i nfer ence s “ w hi ch ar e ( a) ra t i on al l y bas ed on the pe r c e pt i on of

the w i tne s s , a nd ( b) he l pf ul t o a c l e a runde r s t a ndi ng of theThe F ederal Rules of Evidenc e also acknowledg e and permit the summary presentation 16 of voluminous documentary evidenc e. See F ed. R. Evid. 1006 (“Thecontents of voluminous writing s . . . which ca

nnot conveniently

be examined in court may be pre sented in the for

m of a char t, summary , or calculation.”). 34 w i tne s s ’ t e s t i m ony orthe de t e r m i na t i on of a f a c ti n i s s ue , a nd © ) notba s e d on s c ie n tif ic , te c h n ic a l, o ro th e rs p e c ia liz e d k n o w le d g e w ith in th e s c o p e o f R u le 70 2”); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. H enders on , 40 9 F . 3d 12 93 , 12 99 -130 0 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ), ce rt . deni ed, __ U . S . __ , 12 6 S . C t . 13 31 (200 6). 16 A pp el l ant s’ cont ent i on thatO do m shou l d h ave been cl as si fi ed as an expert w itn e s s is in d is tin g u is h ab le f r o m a s im ila rc la im r e

je c te d b y th e T e n th C ir c u it in U n ite d S ta te s v . C ab a lle r o , 2 7 7 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 7 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e r e , th e T e n th C i rcu i tco n cl u d ed th atan F B I fi n an ci al an al ystp ro p erl y t est i fi ed as a l ay w i tn ess e ve n w he r e hi s t e s t i m ony “ s um m a r i z e d bus i ne s s r e c or ds a nd c l i e ntl i s t s a nd pr e s e nt e d the m i n c onde ns e d f or m . . . . ” C aba l l e r o, 277 F . 3d a t1247. A s w i th the F B I f i na nc i a l a na l y s ti n C aba l l e r o, the f a c ttha tO dom i s a f

i na nc i a l e xpe r tdoe s not i n and of i t se l f r equi re thathi s t es t i m on y abo utfi nanci al re cords be tre at ed as e x p e r t te s tim o n y . E ven i f w e w er e t o agree w i th A pp el l ant s thatO do m shou l d h ave been c la s s if ie d a s a n e x p e r t w itn e s s a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t s h o u ld h a v e c o m p lie d w ith R u le 16 (a )’ s di sc l osure r equi re m ent s, “ ‘ [v] i ol at i on s of R ul e 16 w i l l re sul ti n a re vers al o f c o n v icti o n o n ly if su ch a v io lati o n p re ju d ices a d ef

en d an t’ s s u b stan ti al rig h ts.’ ”We reviewde novo Appe llants’ challeng e to the suff iciency of the evidence . United 17 States v. Munoz, 430 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir. 2005), cer t. denied No. 05- 1328, __ U.S. __ ,

__ S. Ct . _ _ , 20 06 U. S. LEXI S 39 95 (M ay 22 , 2 00 6) . “ We re view thee vide nc ein t helight m os t favorable to the g overnment, with all reasona ble inference s and credibility choice s made in the g overnment’s favor .” I d. 35 U n ite d S ta te s v . C h a s ta in , 1 9 8 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . E v e n b e f o r e th e g o v e rn m e n t f

o r m a lly id e n tif

ie d O d o m a s a w itn e s s a t tr ia l, A p p e lla n ts w e r e a w a r e o f h is r o le in th e in v e s tig a tio n a n d th a t h e w o u ld te s tif y to the gove rnm e nt ’ s c e ntr a l a l l e ga t i on tha tM C C ha d bi l l e d C om m uni ty B a nk f or n o n -C o m m u n ity B an k w o rk at P atters o n ’s H er it ag e V alley F ar m s. O d o m ’s t est i m o n y w as b ased en t i rel y o n M C C reco rd s p ro d u ced b y A p p el l an t s th em sel v es, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e v e n e x c lu d e d f r o m tr ia l O d o m ’s s u m m a ry c h a r ts . I t is di f f i c ul tt o s e e w ha ta ddi t i ona l i nf or m a t i on A ppe l l a nt s w e r e e nt i t l e d t o r e c e i ve pri or t o tri al concerni ng O do m ’ s t es t i m on y, or ho w cl as si fy i ng O do m as a l ay w i tn ess p rej u d i ced A p p el l an t s i n an y w ay. D . S u ff

i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce F i na l l y , A ppe l l a nt s a s s e r ttha tthe i rc onvi c t i ons w e r e nots uppor t e d by s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e . A p p e l l a n t s d o n o td e n y th a ta c c o r d i n g t o M CC’ s o w n t i me 17 shee t s, payr ol l and i nv oi ci ng re cords, M C C char ged C om m un i ty B ank atw hat am ou nt ed t o o utra geou s m ark-up s f or the l abor M C C ac tual l y per form ed at C om m un i ty B ank p roj ec t s. Inst ea d, A pp el l ant s c on t end t hatthe go vernm entnever36

r e f u te d th e irb e n ig n e x p la n a tio n f o rth e s e c h a r g e s , n a m e ly , th a t M C C e n g a g e d in

“ f r o n t - l o a d e d ” o r“ p a y f

o rw a r d ” b i l l i n g , c h a r g i n g Co mmu n i ty Ba n k f o rw o r k M CC ha d y e tt o pe r f

or m a tC om m uni ty B a nk s i t e s . A f t e rc ons i de r abl e r e vi e w of the r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a m p le e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t. M C C ’ s r ec ords show thatov erthe sa m e tw o-and-a-hal f y ea r per i od that M C C w a s purpor t e dl y bi l l i ng C om m uni ty B a nk f orw or k y e tt o be pe r f

or m e d, M C C a c tua l l y c om pl e t e d hundr e ds of thous a nds of

dol l a r s of

pe r s ona l w or k f

or P a tte r s o n – C o m m u n ity B a n k ’s p r e s id e n t – w h ile b illin g h im n e x t to n o th in g . I n d e e d , e v id e n c e a t tr ia l d e m o n s tr a te d th a t if n o t f o rM C C ’s s u p p o s e d “f

r o n tl oadi ng ” of i t s bi l l i ng t o C om m un i ty B ank, M C C ’ s c as h fl ow w ou l d h ave been utt e r l y i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o pa y i t s e m pl oy e e s f orthe i rthous a nds of

hour s of w or k on P att erso n ’ s p erso n al p ro j ect s. Iti s th eo ret i cal l y p o ssi b l e th at , as A p p el l an t s cl ai m , M C C m ad e a b u si n ess d e c is io n s im u lta n e o u s ly to b ill C o m m u n ity B a n k u p f r o n t f o rf u tu r e p r o je c ts a n d to d e f e ra lm o s t a ll c h a r g e s to P a tte r s o n f o rth e w o r k M C C d id f

o rh im p e r s o n a lly . Bu tM CC’ s r e c o r d s b e l i e th i s p o s s i b i l i ty . I f A p p e l l a n t s ’ c l a i m w e r e tru e , M CC w ou l d h ave r ec orded l ar ge ac coun t s r ec ei vabl e f or M C C ’ s w ork atH er i t age V al l ey F a r m s . I n s te a d , M C C ’s r e c o r d s s h o w n o t a s in g le a c c o u n t r e c e iv ab le a ttr ib u te d to the H er i t age V al l ey F arm s w ork, no r a ny re cord of any ki nd of the hu ge debtow ed37

t o the m by P a tt e r s on. I f A ppe l l a nt s ’ c l a i m w e r e true , A ppe l l a nt s a ts om e poi nt w oul d ha ve r e turne d t o C om m uni ty B a nk the m a ny hundr e ds of thous a nds of do l l ar s C om m un i ty B ank p ai d for w ork o n p roj ec t s ( such as G un t er svi l l e) w hi ch A p p e lla n ts n e v e rc o m p le te d . A p p e lla n ts n e v e rm a d e a n y s u c h e f f o r ts to c om pe ns a t e C om m uni ty B a nk. E ven m ore r evea l i ng , the ho urs a nd do l l aram ou nt s on o ver ahu nd re d in v o ic e s th a t M C C d e liv e r e d to C o m m u n ity B a n k m a tc h th e h o u r s a n d p a y r o ll am ou nt s M C C ’ s t i m e s heet s a ttri bu t e t o w ork M C C perf orm ed atH er i t age V al l ey F a r m s . T he e vi de nc e a ttr i a l a l s o i nc l ude d a pa r t i c ul a r l y i nc r i m i na t i ng pr i nt out f r o m M C C ’s Q u ic k b o o k s r e c o r d s , o n w h ic h h a n d - w r itte n n o te s e f f e c tiv e ly i de nt i f i e d the pa r t i c ul a rC om m uni ty B a nk pr oj e c t s w hi c h w oul d be c ha r ge d f or expenses ac tual l y i ncurred atH er i t age V al l ey F arm s. Indeed, L i nd a H am aker a c tu a lly a d m itte d a t tr ia l th a t s h e h e r s e lf m a n ip u la te d M C C ’s r e c o r d s to s h if t c o s ts fr om H er i t age V al l ey F arm s t o C om m un i ty B ank p roj ec t s, expl ai ni ng l am el y that s he ha d done s o m e r e l y t o s e e “ w ha ti tl ooke d l i ke i n the c om put e r . ” T he s e r e c or ds w er e never c orre ct ed, even se vera l m on ths af t erL i nd a H am aker ’ s purpo rt ed e x p e r im e n t. D e s p ite o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e th a t M C C s y s te m a tic a lly b ille d C o m m u n ity B a n k f o rth e w o r k d o n e f

o rP a tte r s o n , D e w e y H a m a k e rc la im e d f a ls e ly a t38

C om m uni ty B a nk a nd B a nc s ha r e s boa r d m e e t i ngs tha tM C C ne ve rbi l l e d the B a nk f o rw o r k a t H e r ita g e V a lle y F a r m s . D e w e y H a m a k e rm a d e th e s a m e c la im to W illia m L a f

f e r ty , C o m m u n ity B a n k ’s in v e s tig a to r . A t n o p o in t u n til tr ia l d id ei ther of the H am aker s e xp l ai n t o C om m un i ty B ank o r t o anyon e e l se thatthey w e r e m e r e l y bi l l i ng C om m uni ty B a nk f orpr os pe c t i ve w or k, nordoe s a ny doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e w ha t s oe ve rs uppor ttha tpr opos i t i on. I nde e d, pr i ort o tr i a l , D e w e y H a m a ke ri ns i s t e d tha tM C C w a s bi l l i ng C o m m u n ity B a n k ju s tif iab ly f o ra c tu a l a n d o n g o in g w o r k . O n ly a t tr ia l d id A pp el l ant s c hang e thei r s t ory, cl ai m i ng t o h ave f ront -l oaded t hei r bi l l i ng at B i shop ’ s i nstruct i on . M oreover, up on the F B I s ea rc h o f the H am aker ’ s hom e, D ew ey H am akerm ade asubst ant i al l y i ncri m i nat i ng st at em ent , i nq ui ri ng , “ w hy am I th e o n ly o n e b e in g p u n is h e d a n d lo s in g p r o p e r ty in th is th in g ? I w a s n ’t th e o n ly o n e in v o lv e d in th is s c h e m e .” A g a in s t a m o u n ta in o f

e v id e n c e s u g g e s tin g th a t M C C a n d b o th A p p e lla n ts w i l l i ng l y e ng aged i n fraud ul entbi l l i ng of C om m un i ty B ank, A pp el l ant s’ ent i re theory of defe nse r es t s ul t i m at el y on the t es t i m on y of A pp el l ant s L i nd a H am aker and D ew ey H am akerand t hei r c l ai m s of i nn ocenti nt ent i on s. A s w e have s t at ed m any t i m es before, “ [w ] i tness cr edi bi l i ty i s the sol e provi nce of the j ury. ” S no w den v . S i ng l et ary, 13 5 F . 3d 73 2, 73 9 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). T he j ury w as ent i t l edWe also rejec t Appellants’ claim that the government pre sented no evidenceof 18 conspiracy . For

one, Appe llants themselves admitted at trial that B ishop, an unindicted coconspirator , participated in direc ting their fra udulent billing practices. Moreover , conspiracy require s only

that “two or morepersons c onspire . . . to commit any [federal] offense . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 371. “[T] he pre senceof an agreement is the primary requirement for the e stablishment of a c onspiracy, the commission of an over t act in furtheranc e beingattendant.”United States v. Perez, 489 F.2d 51, 61 ( 5th Cir. 1973). Dewey Hamaker and Linda Hamaker ha ve never denie d agre e ing– at le a st w ithe a c h o ther – on MCC’ s b ill ingpra c tic e s. It is e qu ally c le ar t hat bo th Dewey Hamaker and Linda Hama ker c ommitt ed over

t acts in furtheranc e of the ir dec eption of Communi ty

Ba nk. 39 to d isb eliev e A p p ellan ts’ d u b io u s e x p lan atio n s f o r th eir c o n d u ct an d M C C ’s reco rd s, an d th e ev i d en ce m o re th an su p p o rt ed th e v erd i ct s ag ai n stA p p el l an t s. 18

I V. C R O SS- A PPEA L O F SEN TEN C ES T he gove rnm e ntc r os s - appe a l s A ppe l l a nt s ’ s e nt e nc e s , a r gui ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e d the s e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s i n c a l c ul a t i ng the l os s a m ount c a us e d by A ppe l l a nt s ’ f r a udul e ntc onduc t . I n pa r t i c ul a r , the gove rnm e ntc om pl a i ns thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y r el i ed on l y upo n the am ou ntof the j ury’ s ver di ct o n th e fo rfei tu re co u n tw h en cal cu l at i n g th e l o ss fo r p u rp o ses o f A p p el l an t s’ s e n te n c e s o n C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o o f th e s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t. W e a g r e e . A . F orfe i tu re V er d i ct A f te rf in d in g A p p e lla n ts g u ilty o f b a n k f r a u d a n d c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it bank fr aud, the j ury w as as ked t o rea ch a verdi ctw i th res pectt o the forf ei ture c ountof the i ndi c tm e nt , C ountT hr e e . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 982( a ) ( 2) ( A ) . S e c t i on 982 r e qui r e s tha ta de f

e nda ntc onvi c t e d of

ba nk f r aud f or f e i tt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s a ny40

pr ope r ty the de f

e nda ntobt a i ne d di r e c t l y ori ndi r e c t l y a s a r e s ul tof tha tba nk f

r a ud vi ol at i on . 18 U . S . C . § 9 82 (a )( 1). T he di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d the j ury tha ti tw oul d ha ve t o de c i de the va l ue of the prop erty A pp el l ant s obt ai ned i n con nect i on t o “ the bank fr aud v i ol at i on [of] w hi ch you h ave a l re ady f ou nd the defendant s gui l ty. ” T he di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned tha tthe j ury ne e d onl y ba s e i t s f or f e i tur e f i ndi ng upon the pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , a s oppos e d t o on f a c t s pr ove n be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt , a nd tha tthe j ury w a s bound by i t s f

i ndi ng of gui l ton the f

r a ud c ha r ge s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a s s on, 333 F . 3d 1264, 1277 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( not i ng tha tthe e l e m e nt s of f or f e i tur e unde r18 U . S . C . § 982( a ) m us tbe pr ove n onl y by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence). T he di stri ctcourti nform ed the j ury thatthe go vernm entsoug hta m on ey j udgm e ntof

$1, 686, 407, w hi c h the gove rnm e ntbe l i e ve d c ons t i tut e d the va l ue of p ro ce ed s d er iv ed fr o m th e d ef en d an ts’ fra u d v io lati o n , b u t th at itw as th e ju ry ’s r e s pons i bi l i ty t o r e a c h i t s ow n de t e r m i na t i on r e ga r di ng the pr ope ra m ount . T he go vernm entthen p re se nt ed i t s c as e. R ef er enci ng tri al t es t i m on y f rom fi nanci al a na l y s tO dom , the gove rnm e nta r gue d tha tthe de f e nda nt s ha d r e c e i ve d $3, 122, 977 i n r e ve nue s f

r om C om m uni ty B a nk, the vi c t i m of the i rf r a ud. O f tha ta m ount , 54% w as , ac cordi ng t o the go vernm ent , fr audu l ent l y pre se nt ed t o the bank i n the form41

o f fal se co n stru ct i o n i n v o i ces. A ppe l l a nt s , i n c ontr a s t , a s ke d the j ury t o c ons i de rj us thow m uc h of the m o n ey ch arg ed w as fo r i l l i ci tp u rp o ses, b ecau se atm an y o f th e co n stru ct i o n si t es, th e d e f e n d a n ts p e r f

o r m e d a c tu a l w o r k a n d a c tu a l lab o r , r e s u ltin g in a c tu a l, ta n g ib le c ons truc t i ons tha tw e r e of good qua l i ty . A ppe l l a nt s a s ke d the j ury t o s e pa r a t e out m on ey they r ec ei ved l egi t i m at el y a nd po i nt ed t o thei r t ax re turns as proo f thatthey recei v ed l i tt l e t o n o p ro fi tfro m an y frau d u l en tact i v i ty. A f t e rc l os i ng a r gum e nt s , the di s tr i c tc our tm e tw i th the pa r t i e s ’ c ouns e l a nd fo rm u l at ed an ad d i t i o n al j u ry i n stru ct i o n th ati tread t o th e j u ry as fo l l o w s: A s y ou ha ve he a r d[ , ] the gove rnm e ntc l a i m s appr oxi m a t e l y one poi nt si x m i l l i on do l l ar s t o b e f orfe i t ed base d o n the H er i t age V al l ey F arm f r a u d . . . . I f

, h o we v e r , th e b a s i s o f

y o u rg u i l ty v e r d i c tu n d e rc o u n ttwo w as fr aud o ther than for w ork d on e on H er i t age V al l ey F arm s, then y ourve r di c tof

f or f e i tur e m us tbe ba s e d on the va l ue of tha tf r a ud or ba s e d on the a m ountof

pr oc e e ds di r e c t l y a ttr i but abl e t o tha tf r a ud; th a t is , th e a m o u n t o f

y o u rf o r f e itu r e v e r d ic t s h o u ld b e c o n n e c te d to the ba s i s of

y ourve r di c tof

gui l ty of ba nk f r a ud. N o o bj ec t i on s w er e l od ged t o the j ury i nstruct i on . T he j ury r eturned a forfe i ture v e r d ic t o f

$ 1 7 8 ,5 0 0 . B . L os s C al c u l at i on F or se nt enci ng pu rposes , the P S Is es t i m at ed thatC om m un i ty B ank h ad suff er ed approx i m at el y $2, 00 0, 00 0 i n l osse s a s are sul tof A pp el l ant s’ cr i m i nal c onduc t . T he e vi de nt i a ry f ounda t i on f

orthi s a m ountw a s qui t e s i m i l a rt o the42

e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d t o the j ury f orde t e r m i ni ng f

or f e i tur e . B a s e d on the $2, 000, 000 l oss a m ou nt , the go vernm entadvo ca t ed thatD ew ey H am akerand L i nd a H am aker s h o u l d b e a s s i g n e d a twe l v e - l e v e l l o s s e n h a n c e m e n t , s e e U. S . S . G. §2 F 1. 1(b)(1)(M ), and a four-l evel enhancem entfor gross re ce i pt s of over $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 f

r o m a n o f

f e n s e a f f e c t i n g a f i n a n c i a l i n s t i tu t i o n , s e e U. S . S . G. § 2 F 1 .1 ( b ) ( 7 ) ( B ) . A ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tr e j e c t e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s l os s c a l c ul a t i on an d se tt led u p o n a lo ss am o u n t o f $ 1 7 8 ,5 0 0 , th e e x ac t am o u n t o f th e ju ry ’s forf ei ture verdi ct . T he di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned t hat I s t a nd by the de c i s i on tha tI m a de i n F e brua ry , a s t o the e vi de nc e of gu i l t , and b ec ause the on l y a l l egat i on s thatthe go vernm entprov ed at tri al beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bti nv ol ved t he G un t er svi l l e proj ec t , then th e C o u r t m u s t d e te r m in e th e lo s s in c u rr e d b y th e b a n k o n th a t p r o je c t, notthe t ot a l l os s a l l e ge d by the gove rnm e ntf ora l l e ga t i ons of

f r a ud th a t w e r e n o t p r o v e n a t tr ia l to th e s a tis f a c tio n o f th e ju ry . T he $1 78 , 50 0 l oss c al cul at i on w arra nt ed on l y ase ven-l evel l oss e nh ance m ent , se e U . S . S . G . § 2F 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( H ) , a nd no e nha nc e m e ntf orgr os s r e c e i pt s ove r$1, 000, 000 f r om a f i na nc i a l i ns t i tut i on, y i e l di ng a t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

15. T he r e s ul t i ng G ui del i nes r ange w as 18 t o 2 4 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d th e H a m a k e r s to te r m s o f 1 8 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. C . D i s c u s s i on O n c r o s s - ap p e a l, th e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r lyWe reviewthe district court’s inter pretation and application of thesentenc ing 19 Guidelines de novo, a

nd its loss calculation for cle ar error . United States v. Machado, 333 F.3d 1225, 1227 (11th Cir. 2003). 43 tr e a t e d the j ury ’ s f

or f e i tur e ve r di c ta s a s pe c i a l i nt e rr oga t ory de f i ni ng the s c ope of A ppe l l a nt s ’ c r i m i na l c onduc t . T he gove rnm e nti ns i s t s tha tbe c a us e f or f e i tur e a nd l os s c a l c ul a t i on a r e di s t i nc t , the di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e d the G ui de l i ne s a nd A pp el l ant s m ustbe re se nt ence d. W e a gree . 19 A f t e rU n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S. Ct . 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th e U . S. S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es are n o l o n g er m an d at o ry. E v en so , d i stri ctco u rt s m u st cont i nu e t o con sul tthe prov i si on s of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a nd t o con si der them i n sent enci ng . U ni t ed S t at es v. C ra w ford, 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 78 (11t h C i r. 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J or di , 418 F . 3d 1212, 1215 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, __ U . S. __, 1 2 6 S. Ct . 8 1 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . “ Th i s c o n s u l t a t i o n r e q u i r e me n t , a ta mi n i mu m, obl i ge s the di s tr i c tc our tt o c a l c ul a t e c orr e c t l y the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge pr e s c r i be d by th e G u id e lin e s .” C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 8 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T o cal cul at e c orre ct l y A pp el l ant s’ G ui del i nes r ange i n thi s bank fraud ca se , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s r e q u ir e d to c a lc u la te p r o p e r ly th e a m o u n t o f lo s s p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 F 1 .1 ( b ) . A lth o u g h d is tr ic t c o u r ts n o w c o n s id e rth e G u id e lin e s o n ly in a n a dvi s ory f

a s hi on, U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3 i ns truc t s di s tr i c tc our t s t o c ons i de rnot m e r e l y the c ha r ge d c onduc t , butr a the ra l l “ r e l e va ntc onduc t , ” i n c a l c ul a t i ng a44

d e f e n d a n t’s o f

f e n s e le v e l. S e e B la c k v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 7 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2004) ( c i t i ng U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3 a nd E dw a r ds v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 523 U . S . 511, 118 S . C t . 1475 ( 1998) ) . “ [ S ] e nt e nc i ng c our t s m a y c ons i de rboth unc ha r ge d a nd ac qu i tt ed cond ucti n d et erm i ni ng the approp ri at e s ent ence . ” H as son, 33 3 F . 3d at 1279 n. 19; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e hr , 93 F . 3d 764, 765- 66 ( 11th C i r . 1996) (e ven con du ctthatt oo k p l ac e out si de a r el evantst atut e of l i m i t at i on s per i od m ay be f a c t or e d i nt o the l os s c a l c ul a t i on f ors e nt e nc i ng purpos e s ) . F ur the r , the pr e ponde r a nc e - of

- the - e vi de nc e s t a nda r d, notthe be y ond- a - r e a s ona bl e - doubt s t a nda r d, s t i l l appl i e s t o G ui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i ons a f t e rB ooke r , i nc l udi ng the c a l c ul a t i on of

l os s a m ount s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1304- 05 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , __U .S . __, 1 2 6 S . C t. 4 3 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A s th e d istrict co u rt n o ted at se n ten cin g , $ 1 7 8 ,5 0 0 –th e a m o u n t o f th e ju ry ’s forf ei ture verdi ct– w as the exactam ou ntM C C bi l l ed C om m un i ty B ank b etw ee n F ebruary9, 20 00 and Jun e 20, 20 00 for w ork M C C pu rport edl y di d at G u n te r s v ille . B e c a u s e th e ju ry ’s f o r f e itu r e v e r d ic t in C o u n t T h r e e w a s id e n tic a l to th e s u m o f

th e s e G u n te r s v ille in v o ic e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u r m is e d th a t in C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o , th e ju ry h a d f o u n d A p p e lla n ts g u ilty o f d e f r a u d in g C o m m u n ity B a nk onl y w i th r e s pe c tt o the G unt e r s vi l l e pr oj e c t . B a s e d on thi s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the j ury ’ s ve r di c t , the di s tr i c tc our tr e j e c t e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s e s t i m a t e of l os s a ndAt the post-trial hea ringwith respec t to the withheld documents, the district court 20 reiterated its conc lusion that the jury ’s forf eiture f inding wa s, “in essenc e, a direction as to the jury ’s deter

mination of guilt based on the Gunter sville transac tion only .” The prepondera

nce- of-the- evidenc e standa rd applies to a jur

y ’s forf eiture verdict under 21 § 982(a) (1). Ha sson, 333 F.3d at 1278. 45 a rr i ve d a ta $178, 500 l os s a m ounti de nt i c a l t o the j ury ’ s f or f e i tur e ve r di c t . T he di s tr i c tc our ta s s e r t e d tha t“ be c a us e the onl y a l l e ga t i ons tha tthe gove rnm e nt prov ed attri al beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bti nv ol ved t he G un t er svi l l e proj ec t , then the C ou rtm ustdet erm i ne the l oss i ncurred by the bank on thatproj ec t , no tthe t ot al l oss a l l eged by the go vernm entfor a l l egat i on s of f raud thatw er e notprov en attri al to th e s a tis f

a c tio n o f th e ju ry .” 20 T h er e a re th re e p ro b lem s w ith th e d istrict co u rt’s re li an ce o n th e ju ry ’s f or f e i tur e ve r di c ti n de t e r m i ni ng the c orr e c tl os s a m ountunde rthe s e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes. F i rs t , al tho ug h forfe i ture a nd l oss bea r s i m i l ar i t i es and are det erm i ned unde rthe s a m e bur de n of pr oof , the tw o r e qui r e di s t i nc tc a l c ul a t i ons a nd ne e d not 21 be c a l c ul a t e d i de nt i c a l l y . C r i m i na l f or f e i tur e i s a f

or m of puni s hm e nti m pos e d by th e ju ry to d iv e s t a d e f

e n d a n t o f th e p r o f its o f h is ille g a l a c tiv ity . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 982( a ) . L os s , on the othe rha nd, f oc us e s ge ne r a l l y on the ha r m s uf f e r e d by the vi c t i m of the c r i m i na l c onduc tr a the rtha n on the pr oc e e ds of the c r i m e e nj oy e d by the defendant . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. S nyder, 29 1 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 95 -96 (11 th C i r. 2002) . B e c a us e “ ‘ [ f

] or f e i tur e i s a pe na l ty i m pos e d on a c r i m i na l i nde pe nde ntof46

a ny l os s t o the c r i m e vi c t i m , ’ ” the a m ountof the j ury ’ s f

or f e i tur e ve r di c ti s not nece ss ar i l y the corre ctm ea sure of l oss f or se nt enci ng pu rposes , and t he procedures f ora rr i vi ng a ta f

or f e i tur e a m ounta nd c a l c ul a t i ng l os s a r e di s t i nc t . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D aw ki ns, 20 2 F . 3d 71 1, 71 5 (4t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). T hu s, the di stri ct courterre d t o the ext enti tas sum ed thatthe forf ei ture verdi ctnece ss ar i l y di ct at ed th e lo s s a m o u n t a s w e ll. S e c ond, the di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y tr e a t e d the j ury ’ s f or f e i tur e ve r di c tof $ 1 7 8 , 5 0 0 o n C o u n tT h ree as a sp eci al v erd i ctas t o th e sco p e o f A p p el l an t s’ frau d u l en tco n d u cti n C o u n t s O n e an d T w o . A tro o t , th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s l o ss ca l cul at i on w as base d o n i t s s pecul at i on as t o w hatthe j ury’ s f orfe i ture verdi ct i m pl i e d a s t o the j ury ’ s vi e w of A ppe l l a nt s ’ ove r a l l gui l ton the ba nk f r a ud a nd conspi ra cy char ges. B as ed on the forf ei ture verdi cti n C ou ntT hree , the di stri ct c our ta s s um e d tha tthe j ury ha d f ound A ppe l l a nt s ’ gui l ty of onl y a s ubs e tof

the frau d u l en tco n d u ctal l eg ed b y th e g o v ern m en t , an d arri v ed atth e $ 1 7 8 , 5 0 0 l o ss a m o u n t la r g e ly b a s e d o n th is a s s u m p tio n . H ow ever , the forf

ei ture verdi cton C ou ntT hree w as no ta s peci al i nt errogat ory or aspec i al verdi ctas t o C ou nt s O ne and T w o. T he j ury’ s f orfe i ture verdi ctcont ai ns no i nform at i on apar tfr om the $1 78 , 50 0 d ol l aram ou nti t se l f, i nf or m a t i on w hol l y i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h the r a t i ona l e f orthe j ury ’ s ve r di c ton47

C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o . A b s e n t a n e x p lic it s p e c ia l v e r d ic t e x p la in in g th e s p e c if ic gr ounds f

orthe j ury ’ s f

i ndi ng of gui l ton the C ountO ne a nd T w o c ons pi r a c y a nd fr au d ch ar g es , th e d istrict co u rt’s sp ec u lati o n as to th e r ea so n in g b eh in d th e ju ry ’s ge ne r a l ve r di c ton thos e c ount s w a s i m pr ope r . S e e M a r s v. M ount s , 895 F . 2d 13 48 , 13 57 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ). W here the j ury r eturns a genera l verdi ctof gu i l ty, as i tdi d on C ount s O ne a nd T w o, the ba s i s f orthe j ury ’ s ve r di c ti s notknow n, a nd the or i z i ng aboutthe j ury ’ s vi e w s thr e a t e ns t o i nva de the s a c r e d pr ovi nc e of the ju ry . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . A lle n , 3 0 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c itin g w ith appr ova l U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O r oz c o- P r a da , 732 F . 2d 1076, 1083 ( 2d C i r . 1984) , f or th e p r o p o s itio n th a t a ju d g e h a s n o w a y to in te rp r e t th e ju ry ’s u n d e r ly in g in te n t in th e a b s e n c e o f

a s p e c ia l v e r d ic t) ; F a lla d av . D u g g e r , 8 1 9 F .2 d 1 5 6 4 , 1 5 6 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 87 ). A s s uch, the di stri ctcourterre d b y e xtrapo l at i ng fr om the forf ei ture v erd i cta b ro ad er est i m at i o n o f th e j u ry’ s v i ew s o n th e u n d erl yi n g ch arg es. T h ir d , r e g a r d le s s o f

w h a t m o tiv a te d th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t o f g u ilt a n d its f or f e i tur e de t e rm i na t i on, the s e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r e qui r e a di s tr i c tc our t , a tthe s e n te n c in g s ta g e , to m a k e in d e p e n d e n t f in d in g s e s tab lis h in g th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o rits G ui de l i ne s c a l c ul a t i ons . S e e F e d. R . C r i m . P . 32( i ) ( 3) ( B ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N di a y e , 434 F . 3d 1270, 1300 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N e l s on, 356 F . 3d 7 1 9 , 7 2 2 ( 6 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( s ta tin g th a t R u le 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( B ) “e n s u r e [ s ] th a t s e n te n c in g is48

b a s e d o n r e liab le f

a c ts f o u n d b y th e c o u r t its e lf

a f te rd e lib e r a tio n ” ) ( e m p h a s is a dde d) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ove , 134 F .3 d 5 9 5 , 6 0 5 ( 4 th C ir .1 9 9 8 ) ( c itin g U .S .S .G § 1 B 1 .3 f o rth e p r o p o s itio n th a t a

“ di s tr i c tc our tha s a s e pa r a t e obl i ga t i on . . . t o m a ke i nde pe nde ntf a c tua l f i ndi ngs r e g a r d in g r e le v a n t c o n d u c t f o rs e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s ” ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld have as se ss ed i nd ependent l y the re l evantl oss f or se nt enci ng pu rposes ra ther than de f e rr i ng t o the j ury ’ s vi e w of the s c ope of

A ppe l l a nt s ’ gui l t , orr a the rt o the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s p e c u la tio n a s to th e ju ry ’s v ie w o f th e s c o p e o f

A p p e lla n ts ’ g u ilt.

“ ‘ T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs f orpurpos e s of

s e nt e nc i ng m a y be ba s e d on, am on g o ther thi ng s, evi dence hear d d uri ng tri al , un di sput ed st at em ent s i n the P S I, ore vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. ’ ” N di a y e , 434 F . 3d a t1300 (c i t at i on om i tt ed). W hi l e the di stri ctcourtri gh t l y c on si dere d the fi nanci al evi dence und er l yi ng the j ury’ s f orfe i ture ver di ct , the di stri ctcourterre d as am att er of l aw by consi deri ng the forf ei ture verdi cti t se l f. T he j ury’ s f orfe i ture verdi ctw as n o ti t sel f ev i d en ce as t o th e p ro p er l o ss cal cu l at i o n fo r sen t en ci n g p u rp o ses. A c c or di ngl y , w e va c a t e A ppe l l a nt s ’ s e nt e nc e s a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. O n r e s e nt e nc i ng, w e e m pha s i z e tha t“ [ t ] he l i m i t s of s e n te n c in g a c c o u n tab ility a r e n o t c o e x te n s iv e w ith th e s c o p e o f c r im in a l liab ility . .

. . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H un t er , 32 3 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 19 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). A s m ent i on edOn remand, the previously withheld documents may be considered to whatever extent 22 they pert ain to th etw o re mainingsentenc ingiss ue s, but th e y sh all n ot b eus e d torevis it Appellants’ c onvictions on Counts One a nd Two. We clarify

this becausein denying Appellants’ B rady

and Jencks Act claims, see Part III .B, supra, the district cour t emphasized that it de nie d th e sec laims so le ly be c a us eno neof

thewi thh e ld m ateri al re late d totheGunters vil le projec t. The district court state d that “if [the district court] erre d in finding inadequateevidenc e to s uppo rt

a c onvic tio n o r re quirec on side ratio n o f t hebroader c on sp ira c y

alle g atio ns in sentenc ing , th e n a

moretho rough a

nalysis sh ould b edo nec on c e rningthesu pp re sse d documents as a whole and the cumulative eff ect that infor

mation could have had on those broader issues at trial.” Ho wever, wec on c lude , s e ePart III .B , s up ra , th at th eno n- dis c los ureof thedo c umentsdid not prejudiceAppellants in any way . Fur

thermore , even thedistrict court ac knowledg ed that as to the Guntersville alleg ations, the non-disclosuredid not prejudice A ppellants. Be causethe Gunters vil lealle g atio ns in a nd of themse lve s a

rewh olly su ff ic ient to s uppo rt

Appe lla nts ’ convictions for ba

nk fra ud and conspiracy, the documents’ hy pothetical re levanc e to some other subset of the c onduct cha rg ed in Counts One and Tw o is irreleva nt to Appellants’ convictions on Counts One and Two. M o reim p o rta ntly , thisCo urt h a s th o ro u gh ly re v iew e d th ed o c umentsth e ms e lv e s . We find without difficulty

that the documents in no wa y support Appellants’ a

rguments for acquittal or a new trial, claims which we have re jected f inally in this opi nion. 49 a bove , a l l of

A ppe l l a nt s ’ r e l e va ntc onduc t , i nc l udi ng a c qui tt e d c onduc ta nd cond uctno tm ent i on ed i n the supers edi ng i nd i ctm ent , m ay be consi dere d at se nt enci ng . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. E xarhos, 13 5 F . 3d 72 3, 73 0 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M uni o, 909 F . 2d 436, 438- 39 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . M or e ove r , the g o v ern m en tn eed o n l y p ro v e fact s rel ev an tt o th e l o ss cal cu l at i o n b y a prepon dera nce of the evi dence, ra ther than b ey on d a re as on abl e dou bt , as re qu i re d f orthe unde r l y i ng c r i m i na l c onvi c t i ons . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F utr e l l , 209 F . 3d 1286, 12 90 -92 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ). T hu s, w hi l e the di stri ctcourt , as the fa ctfi nd erat s e nt e nc i ng, r e t a i ns br oa d di s c r e t i on i n c a l c ul a t i ng l os s , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d not p e rs e r e s tr ic t its lo s s c a lc u la tio n to th e G u n te r s v ille p r o je c t. 2250 V . CONCL US I ON F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f

o r th a b o v e , w e a f

f ir m A p p e lla n ts ’ c o n v ic tio n s , v a c a te the i rs e nt e nc e s , a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. T he d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y ap p l i ed th e G u i d el i n es o n al l m att ers ex cep tfo r th e l o ss c a l c ul a t i on, s e e U . S . S . G . § 2F 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( M ) , a nd pot e nt i a l l y the e nha nc e m e ntf or gr os s r e c e i pt s of

ove r$1, 000, 000 f

r om a n of

f e ns e a f f e c t i ng a f i na nc i a l i ns t i tut i on, see U . S . S . G . § 2 F 1 . 1 (b )(7 )(B ). T h u s, th e d i stri ctco u rtsh o u l d o n l y rev i si tth ese tw o s e nt e nc i ng i s s ue s a tr e s e nt e nc i ng. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T W I TH I N STR U C TI O N S.