FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APR 30, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1627 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00044 -CR- T- 24-TBM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TONY L. FORD, a.k .a. Bo Bo , a.k .a. Bo , a.k .a. Big Head , ANDREW

M. TANNIS, ELDRED B. HARDY, a.k .a. Big Face , a.k .a. Pie Face , STEVEN R. HA RDY, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 30, 200 7)2

Be fo re CA RN E S, W IL SO N and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T his is a m

ult i- de fe ndant a

ppe al f oll ow ing the inf

iltratio n of

alarg e dr

ug r i n g o p e r a t i n g o u to f

ah o u s i n g p r o

j e c ti nT a mp a , F l o r i d a . T h e dr u g s c h e me inv olv ed obt ai nin g po w de r co ca ine f ro m an ov er se as sup pli er

in N ewO rl eans and co nve rt ing the pow de r int o c ra ck c oc ai ne to se ll thr ough out T am pa . D ef en dant T ony F or d le ad

the c onsp ir ac y . B ro the rs E ldr ed H ar dy and S te ve n H ar dy

a lso part ic ipate d. T he f

ourth d ef en dant, A ndr ewT annis , w as ac re w m anon a c ru ise shi p do ck ed

in N ewO rl eans. T annis de liv er ed pow de r co ca ine to A stl ey S te w ar t, w ho u lti m at el y

sup pli ed F or d and the H ar dy

br oth er s. The four defendants we re convicted follo wing a tw o-we ek j ury trial. Ford and the H ardy brothers we re se nte nc ed to lif e im pr iso nm en t, and T annis w as se nte nc ed to 121 m onths im pr iso nm en t. T he f

our de fe ndants r ai se num er ous iss ue s inthi s a ppe al , non e of whi ch are m eri to rio us . I. Fo rd r ai se s f our iss ue s. H e co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it ( 1) vio late d hi s S ixth A m en dm en t r igh t t o c ouns el ; ( 2) e rr one ousl y de nie d hi s m oti on to dism iss based on an alleged Speedy Tr ial Ac t violatio n; (3) im properly denied his m oti on t o di sm iss f

or an a lle ge d P et ite vio latio n; and ( 4) e rr ed in es tim at ingSee B onner v. City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc) 1 (adoptingall decisions of the f ormer F ifth Circuit announce d prior to Octobe r 1, 1981, as binding prec edent in the Ele venth Circuit). 3 the r at e of

c onve rs ionf

ro m pow de r co ca ine to cr ac k c oc ai ne in ca lc ulatin g hi s sentence. N o n e o f F o r d ’s c l a i ms h a s me r i t . F i r s t , a s t o th e S i x th A me n dme n tc l a i m, Ford had am

ple oppo rtunity

prior to trial to secure his own counsel. T he district court properly

denied his app ointed cou nsel’ s m otion to withdraw , which was filed le ss than aw ee k be fo re tr ia l w as sc he dul ed to be gin . S ee , e . g. , U nit ed S tate s v. Se xto n, 473 F . 2d 5 12, 513 –14 (5 th C ir . 197 3) . S ec ond, the re w as no S pe edy 1 T ri al A ct vio latio n he re be ca

use af ed er al de ta ine r doe s no t st ar t the r unni ng o f the seventy -day

clock. See United States v. Skanes, 17 F.3d 1352 , 1353 n.1 (11th Cir. 19 94 ). Onl y

th e in di ct m en t o r th e d efen da nt ’s firs t ap pe aran ce t rig ge rs th e st atut e. 18 U. S. C. § 316 1(c)( 1). As a result, F ord’ s trial began we ll within the seventy -day win do w, andno vi ol at io n o ccu rred . T hir d, c ir cu it pr ec ed en t i s se ttl ed that the P et ite pol ic y

doe s no t a

ppl y wher e, as here, there w as no adjudication of guilt in the state court. United State s v. N elligan, 573 F.2d 251, 254–5 5 (5th Cir. 1978). Ford’ s state charges w ere dis m iss ed on a te ch nic al ity

w ith out af ind ing of gui lt, so the re w as no r equir em en t4

that the gov er

nm en t ob ta in the appr ova l of the U nit ed

S tate s A tto rn ey

G en er al to fi le the suc ce ssi ve f

ed er al a ct ion . F ina lly , the c ourt’ s m ethod of e sti m at ing the co nve rs ionof

pow de r to c ra ck

c oc ai ne w as im

m at er ia l. F or d a lr ea dy

f ac ed a m an da tor y li fe se nte nc e unde r 21 U . S. C. § 84 1 ( b) (1 )( A ) be ca use he ha d tw o pr ior dr ug- re late d f

el ony c onvi ct ion s. T hus, the am ount of c ra ck a ttr ibu te d to him

by the c ourt at the se nte nc ing he ar ing did not a ff ec t the se nte nc e im

pose d. II. Eld redHard y

als o c on te nd s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t m ad e fo urerro rs . He co nte nds that i t e rr ed

( 1) in de ny ing his m oti on f or a cquitta l or

ne wtr ia l ba se d on ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce ; ( 2) in adm itt ing im pr ope r he ar say

te sti m ony

a t tri al ; ( 3) in adm itting evidence of uncharged crim inal condu ct occurring before the date set out in the ind ic tm en t; an d ( 4) in vio latin g hi s su bst an tia l r igh ts thr oughthe cum ulativ e ef fe ct of the it s e rr or s. Like F ord’ s argum ents, E ldred Hardy ’ s claim s have no m erit. First, there w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce pr es en te d at tri al to supp ort hi s c onvi ct ion . W e m ust take the e vid en ce in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the ve rd ic t, U nit ed S tate s v. T hom

pson , 473 F. 3d 1 137, 114 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) , and the re w as am ple e vid en ce li nki ng Hard y to th e la rg er co ns pi racy. Se co nd, the re w as no r ev er sib le e rr or r eg ar din g th e he ar say

te sti m ony5

adm itt ed a t tri al . A s to Mi ch ae l R ei d’ s te sti m ony , be ca use it w as c um ulativ e any er ro r that m ay

have oc curr ed

in its a dm iss ionw as harm le ss. C ough linv. Ca pit ol Ce m en t C o. , 571 F . 2d 2 90, 307 ( 5thCi r. 197 8) ( “ T he im pr ope r adm iss ionof hearsay testim ony

which is m erely

cum ulative on m atters shown by other adm iss ibl e ev ide nc e is h ar m le ss e rr or . ”) . E ve n if

Re id’ s te sti m ony

r eg ar din g Tw an Le e’ s out-of-court statem ents sho uld have been excluded, Reid also offer ed te sti m ony of E ldr ed H ar dy ’ s own a dm iss ion s di re ct ly li nki ng h im

to Fo rd . A s to the a dm iss ionof

the ta pe and transc ri pt f

ro m the r ec or de d dr

ug d ea l, any

e rr or in adm itting Reid’ s statem ents m ade directly to the agents via the bo dy bug was harm less because this evidence was a lso cum ulative. Id. H ardy

only challenges part of the ta pe and transc ri pt o n he ar say gr ound s; h e doe s no t c ont es t the ir authentication . Beca

use Eldred w as ref

erence d by

nam e in two other u n ch al l en g edp o rt i o n s o f t h e r ec o rd i n g , a n y erro r c o m m i t t edb y ad m i t t i n g Re i d ’s state m en ts t o th e ag en ts w as harm le ss. T he pur pose of the r ec or din g w as to lin k E ldr ed to the sta ge d dr

ug d ea l, and p ro pe rl y

a dm itt ed portio ns o f the ta

pe and tra ns cri ptdi d ju stth at . T hir d, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t pl ai nly e rr in adm itt ing e vid en ce of

“ unc harg ed

c ondu ct , ” be ca

use the gov er

nm en t e sta

bli she d th at

the e ar lie r dr

ugs sa le s i n q ue st io n o ccu rred“ reas on ab ly” clo se to da te setou t i n t he in di ct m en t.6

United States v. Pope, 132 F.3d 684 , 688–89 (11t h Cir. 1998 ); Russell v. United St at es , 429 F . 2d 2 37, 238 ( 11th C ir . 197 0) ( “ It se em s w el l se ttl ed

that an a lle ga tio n as to the ti m e of

the of fe nse is not

an e sse nti al e le m en t of

the of fe nse c harg ed

in the ind ic tm en t and, w ith in r ea sona ble li m its , pr oof

of any date be fo re the r et

ur n of the ind ic tm en t and w ith in the statut e of li m itatio ns i s su ff

ic ie nt. ” (quot at ion s om itt ed )) . T he ind ic tm en t c harg ed c ondu ct oc curr ing “ fr om

a t l ea st i n or

aro und the S um m er of 200 3. ” T hus, c ondu ct

oc curr ing in Fe br

uary 200 3 w as “ at

le as t i n or aro und” the date c harg ed . F ina lly , be ca use the re w as li ttl e if

any r ev er sib le erro r, th er e w as n o cu m

u l at i v e e rr o r a m o u n t i n g t o a v i o l at i o no f E l dre dHa rd y’ s subs tanti al r igh ts. III . T he thi rd de fe ndant, S te ve n H ar dy li ke w ise r ai se s f

our iss ue s. H e co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed ( 1) in es tim at ing the c onve rs ionr at e of pow de r co ca ine to crack c ocaine in calculating his sen tence; (2) in deny ing hi s m otion for ac quitt al or new trial based on insu fficient evidence; ( 3) in refusing to grant a m istrial based on an a lle ge d B ra dy

vio latio n; and ( 4) in de ny ing his m oti on f or m istri al ba se d on the testim ony

of D etective Mills, one of the a gents inv olved in the case. W e ar e not

pe rs ua de d. F ir st, li ke F or d, S te ve n H ar dy w as sub j ec t t o a m andatory

m inim um life sentence under 21 U .S .C. § 841(b)(1)(A ) because he had7

tw o pr ior dr ug- re late d f

el ony c harg es . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s m ethod of co nve rt ing pow de r co ca ine to cr ac k w as im m at er ia l t o hi s se nte nc e. S ec ond, the ev ide nc e pr es en te d at tri al w as suf fi ci en t t o su sta in H ar dy ’ s c onvi ct ion . H is c la im that the gov er

nm en t r el ie d onthe que sti ona ble te sti m ony

of c o- co nspi rator s, dr

ug de al er s and u se rs , and c onvi ct ed f el ons is o f no ava il. W e have r ep eate dly he ld th atjud gi ng th e cre di bi li ty of wit ne ss es is th e res po ns ib il it y of t he jury. See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Parra do , 91 1 F .2d15 67 , 15 70 –7 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . T hir d, no B ra dy

vio latio n oc curr ed

he re . S te ve n H ar dy

did not pr ove any pr ej udi ce c au se d by

the gov er

nm en t’ s a lle ge d f

ai lur e to i nf

orm him that on e of

it s w itn es se s ha s be engr ante d us e im m uni ty . A ddi tio na lly , the c ourt a llo w ed H ar dy to r ec al l the w itn es s to a sk any a ddi tio na l qu es tio ns o nc e he “ kne w ” ab out the im m uni ty , f urthe r dis pe lli ng any

pos sib le pr ej udi ce . S ee Ro utl y v. S ing le tary , 33 F. 3d 12 79, 1285– 86 (11th Cir. 1994 ) (noting that th ere is no Brady violatio n when de fe nse c ouns el w as aw ar e of the gr an t of

im m uni ty and c ro ss- ex am ine d th e wit ne ss reg ard in g t ha t i m m un it y ). Fi na lly , H ar dy ’ s c la im

that D et ec tiv e Mi lls ’ te sti m ony ne ce ssi tate d a m istri al la ck s m er it. T he tr ia l c ourt di d no t e rr in de te rm ini ng tha t M ill s’ testim ony encom passed the recorded conversations between H ardy and Ford without im

ply ing th at H ardy

had been recor ded conversing with any of the other8

defendants. And even if there w as err or, a m istrial is not warranted where , a s here, there is other significant evidence of guilt th at w ouldreduce the likelihood th at any im pr ope r te sti m ony

ha d asub stanti al im

pa ct on the j ur

y . U nit ed S tate s v. Anderson, 782 F. 2d 90 8, 916 (11th Cir. 1986). IV. The las t d efen da nt , And rew Tan ni s ra is es fiv e is su es on ap pe al . He contends that the district court erred ( 1) in refusing to grant a m istrial based on an al le ge d B ra dy

vio latio n; ( 2) in de ny ing his m oti on f or m istri al ba se d onthe im pr ope r te sti m ony

of D et ec tiv e Mi lls ; ( 3) in de ny ing his m oti on f or a cquitta l or new tr ial based on ins ufficient evidence; (4) in refusing to gi ve a “ m ere presence” ins tr uc tio n sp ec if

ic al ly dir ec te d at T annis ’ inv olv em en t i n th e sc he m e; and ( 5) in im pr ope rl y ins tr uc tin g th e j ur

y that the y c oul d us e the ind ic tm en t t o de te rm ine the quantit y of drugs invo lved in th e offe nse. Lik e th e th ree o th er d efen da nt s, Tan ni s h as no t ra is edan y va li d c la im . He m akes two of the sam e ar gum ents as Steven Hardy , and as notedabove, neither cl ai m ha s m er it. T he re w as no p re j udi ci al Br ady

vio latio n be ca

use the de fe ndants w er e giv enan op portun ity to cr oss -e xam ine the w itn es s r eg ar din g th e gr an t of use im m uni ty . S ec ond, D et ec tiv e Mi lls pr ope rl y c lari fi ed any m iss tate m en t he m ad e re g ar d i n g Ta n n i s ’ in v o l v emen ti nth e r ec o rd edco n v er s at i o n s . Up o nth e c o u rt ’s9

instructio n, Mills narrow ed the scope of his previou s testim ony and specified that Tannis was only

rec orded speaking to Stew art and not to any of the other de fen da nt s. A s to T annis ’ thi rd

arg um en t, the re w as am

ple e vid en ce to supp ort hi s co nvi ct ion . A ga in, w e m ust c onstru e the e vid en ce in favor of the ve rd ic t. F ourth, the district court properly rea d the jury

the general conspiracy

instruction , which inc lud ed the state m en t tha t a

de fe ndant’ s m er e pr es en ce a t the sc en e cannot a lon e es tabl is h h is in vo lv em en t i n t he co ns pi racy. Tan ni s was no t en ti tl edto hi s o wn spe ci fi c ins tr

uc tio n; the standard

ins tr uc tio n w as suf

fi ci en t. S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Alvare z-More no, 874 F.2d 1402 , 1413 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting that the district co urt m ust be gr an te d di sc re tio n inf ram ing j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns and tha t i f the c harg e ac tua lly giv enc ove re d th e es se nc e of the pr opos ed

ins tr uc tio n, no r ev er sib le e rr or oc cu rred ). Fi na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inr es pond ing to the jury’ s q ue st io n re ga rd in g t he qu an ti ty of drug s i m pl ic at edin th e ch arg edco nduc t. W e ar e to consider the supp lem ental j ury instruction in ligh t of the entire j ury ch ar ge , U nit ed

S tate s v. Joh nson , 139 F . 3d 1 359, 136 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) , and the jury w as sp eci fic al ly tol d t ha t t he in di ct m en t was no t t o b e co ns id eredev id en ce. The supp le m en ta l i ns tru ct io n was no t erro ne ou s.10 V. AF FIRMED .