FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 56 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 03 87 -VMC- TBM-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CURTIS SP EIGHT, a.k .a. Cu rti s Lav ar Sp ei gh t, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 8, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Cu rti s Sp ei gh t ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en tto di st rib ut e fi ve or m or e g ram s o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6

an d 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), a ndpo ss es si on with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e o r m or e g ram s of co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). On ap pe al , Spe ig htarg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e g ran te d am is tri al aft er a go ve rn m en t wi tn es s t es ti fie d abo uthi s i nv ol ve m en t i n o th er u nc harg edcri m es . He al so ass ert s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n fo r a co nt in ua nc e to se cu re the tes ti m on y

of a n a dd it io na l wi tn es s wh o c ou ldha ve reb ut te d t he te st im on y of h is bro th er, Leo na rdSp ei gh t, wh o was a wit ne ss forth e g ov ern m en t. Fi na ll y , Spe ig htarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e d ire ct edth e g ov ern m en t to pro vi de hi m

with J en ck s Actm at eri al s re le va ntto Leon ard ’s tes ti m on y . For t he reas on s s ta te d b el ow, we af firm . I. A gra ndjury ch arg edSp ei gh t wi th co ns pi racy to p os se ss with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e fi ve or m or e g ram s o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6 a nd 84 1( b) (1 )(B) (ii i), a ndpo ss es si onwith i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e o r m or e g ram s o f co cai ne ba se , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(B) (ii i). Sp ei gh t’s br ot he r Leo na rdals o was cha rg edin th e in di ct m en t. Leo na rdpl edgu il ty sho rtl y be fo re the tri al be ga n. At Sp ei gh t’s tria l, the go ve rn m en t ca ll eda se rie s o f la w enf or cem en t 2of

fic ers who tes ti fie d t o t he fol lo win g fa ct s. OnJu ly 24, 2 00 9, Det ect iv e Edd ie Ben it ez o f th e Lak el an d, Fl or id a, Po li ce Dep art m en t re cei ve d ati p t ha t Sp ei gh t was go in g t o b e tr an sp orti ng crac k c oc ai ne in a Fo rdF1 50 pi ck up tru ck . A chec k of Sp ei gh t’s driv in g h is to ry rev eal edth athi s l ic en se ha d b eensu sp en de d. Be ni te z an d Det ect iv e Ja so n P erez lo cat edSp ei gh t’s tru ckan d fo ll owe d i t u nt il th ey ob se rv editrun a st op si gn . The d et ect iv es rad io edfora m ark edpa tro l u ni t t o s to p th e truc k. Offi cer Os car Wesl ey

res po nd edto th e cal l, p ul le d up b eh in d t he tru ck , and act iv at edhi s l ig ht s an d s ire n. Ho wev er, the tru ckfai le d t o p ul l o ve r. Su dd en ly, Leo nardjum

pe d o utof t he pa ss en ge r’s si de of t he ve hi cl e an d ran t hr ou gh an op en in g b etween so m e b us he s. Wesl ey ex it edhi s v eh ic le an d p ur su edLeon ardon fo ot . He saw Leo na rddro p wh atap pe aredto be st y ro fo am pl at es . W es le y ev en tu al ly too k Leo na rdin to cu st ody . Office r Rube n Gar ci a la te r rec ov eredth e st y ro fo am pl at es an d d is co ve redpi eces of c rackco cai ne in th e v ic in it y . Mea nwh il e, Dete ct iv es Ben it ez an d P erez were trav el in g d own an ot he r st reetin anatt em

ptto he adoff

th e truc k. Be ni te z h eardov er the rad io th ata pa ss en ge r ha d ju m

pe d o utof t he tru ck , so he ex it edth e v eh ic le inord er t o c at ch th e p as se ng er i f he att em

pt edto fle e inth atdi rect io n. Me an whi le , Perez dro ve do wn Dav is Str eet , wher e h e sa w Spe ig ht ’s tru ckpu ll in to a dr iv eway of a 3res id en ce an d the n s ta rt t o b ackou t ag ai n. Pe rez p os it io ne d h is ve hi cl e to bl oc k

th e truc k, an d the n a rres te d S pe ig htfordri vi ng on a su sp en de d l ic en se . A few week s l at er, Det ect iv e Ben it ez arres te d S pe ig hton th e p res en t dru g t raff ic ki ng ch arg es . After wa iv in g h is Mir an da rig ht s, Sp ei gh t ad m it te d t ha t h e h ad 1 pu rch as edth e cra ckco cai ne an d i de nt ifi edhi s s up pl ie r. At o ne po in t, the pro se cu to r as ke d Det ect iv e Per ez t o re la te whathapp en ed aft er h e st op pe d S pe ig ht ’s tru ck . Perez res po nd ed , “ I as ke d h im to st ep ou t o f th e ve hi cl e, whi ch he co m

pl ie d. I as ke d h im

if h e h ada dr iv er’s l ic en se . He di d n ot . He was pl acedun de r arre stfordri vi ng whi le li cen se su sp en de d o r rev ok ed , anda se arch in ci de ntto arre sty ie ld eda sm al l am ou ntof c an nabi s i n h is po ck et .” Defen se co un se l o bjec te d t o t ha t s ta te m en t an d m ov edfora m is tri al . The d is tri ct co urt d ecl in edto ord er a m is tri al , bu t i t d idin st ru ctth e jury to d is reg ardth e te st im on y ab ou t t he m ari

juan a. Sp ei gh t’s b ro th er Leo na rdtes ti fie d o n b eh al f of th e g ov ern m en t. Leo na rd ex pl ai ne d t ha t, o n t he da te in qu es ti on , he a ndSp ei gh t h addri ve n t o ares id en ce whe re Sp ei gh t h adpu rch as edcrac k c oc ai ne . As th ey were driv in g, a p ol ic e car pu ll edup be hi ndth em

an d a ct iv at edit s l ig ht s. Leo na rdst art edto hi de th e dru gs in th e g lo ve co m

partment, b utSp ei gh t t ol d h im th athe ha d t o d o b ette r th anth at . Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.C t. 1602, 16 L .Ed.2d 694 (1966). 1 4Leo nardth ento okth e cra ckco cai ne , jum pe d o utof t he tru ck , andranth ro ug h t he he dg es . Even tu al ly, Offi cer Wesl ey cau gh t Leo na rdan d p la cedhi m un de r arre st . Leo nardco nf

irmed th atSp ei gh t was pl an ni ng to sel l the crac k c oc ai ne . Fo ll owi ng Leon ard ’s tes ti m on y , th e g ov ern m en t re st edit s ca se . Defen se co un se l b rie fly recal le d Det ect iv e Ben it ez, an d t he n i nf orm edth e co urt t ha t h e d id no t h av e an y

furth er wi tn es se s. Th e d is tri ctco urt t he n i nqui redwhet he r Sp ei gh t in te nd edto tes ti fy

in hi s o wn d efen se . Defen se co un se l s ta te d t ha t h e was no t pl an ni ng to cal l Sp ei gh t as a wit ne ss . Cou ns el th enst art edto arg ue th at , un de r th e Je nc ks Act, the go ve rn m en t s ho ul d h av e tu rn edov er al l o f th e rec or de d t el ep ho ne cal ls th atLeon ardha d m ad e whi le in cu st ody . Cou ns el ackno wled ge d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t p ro babl y

was n otin po ss es si on of t ho se reco rd in gs , bu t h e as se rte d th atth ey were n on ethe le ss subjec t t o d is cl os ur e und er the Jen ck s Act . The d is tri ct co urt re sp on de d, “ At the pre se ntm om en t, Mr . Hov se pi an , I wis h t o p ro ceedwith wha t we s ta rte d o utto di sc us s.” Th e co urt the n e ng ag edin a co ll oquy with Sp ei gh t t o c on firm

th athe di d n otwis h t o t es ti fy . Defen se co un se l d idno t re ne w hi s J en ck s Actarg um en t an d the di stric t co urt n ev er ru le d o n t ha t i ss ue . Defen se co un se l l at er m ov edfora co nt in ua nc e to sec ur e th e te st im on y of a reb ut ta l wi tn es s wh o wo ul d b e ab le to im pe ach Leon ard ’s tes ti m on y . Cou ns el ex pl ai ne d t ha t Sp ei gh t h adjus t t ol d h im ab ou t a wi tn es s i n t he Pin el la s C ou nt y Jai l 5who wou ldha ve so m e in fo rm at io n re gard in g Leo na rd ’s tes ti m on y . The d is tri ct

co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n fo r a co nt in ua nc e. The ju ry co nv ic te d S pe ig htwith res pe ctto bo thco un ts of t he in di ctm en t, an d the di st ric t co urt s en te nc edhi m to co nc urren t t erm s o f 23 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. II. Inth e p ro ceed in gs be lo w, Spe ig htob jecte d t o Det ect iv e Per ez’s t es ti m on y ab ou t the m ari

juan a fo un d o n h is pe rs on , bu t n otth e te st im on y th athe was d riv in g on a su sp en de d l ic en se . There fo re, we are rev ie win g S pe ig ht ’s arg um en ts reg ard in g t he m ari

juan a fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n, an d h is arg um en ts co nc ern in g th e su sp en de d l ic en se forpl ai n e rro r. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Emma nu el , 56 5 F .3d 13 24 , 13 34 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (a d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t a m is tri al is rev ie wedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Ed ou ar d , 48 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (u np res erv edev id en ti ary ob jecti on s ar e rev ie wedforpl ai n erro r). Und er the pl ai n e rro r st an da rd , a de fen da ntm us t es tabl is h: (1) erro r; ( 2) th atis pl ai n; an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s h is subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . Id. at n .7. Anerro r affe ct s a d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts if t he re i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t i t al te red th e o ut co m e o f th e cas e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 99 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). If th e fi rs t t hr ee el em en ts of p la in erro r rev ie w are m et , th is Co urt h as di sc ret io n t o c orrectanerro r th at“ se rio us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c 6rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3dat 1 34 3 n .7 (quo ta ti on

om it te d) . A di st ric t co urt s ho ul d g ran t a m is tri al ba se d o n i m pr op er t es ti m on y

on ly if th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t t he tes ti m on y alt eredth e o ut co m e o f th e cas e. Emman ue l , 56 5 F .3dat 1 33 4. Th e st ro ng er the go ve rn m en t’s ca se , th e le ss li ke ly itis th atth e in adm is si bl e ev id en ce h adaneffe cton th e v erd ic t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Rou co , 76 5 F .2d98 3, 9 92 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). If th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d acu rat iv e in st ru ct io n, t hi s C ou rt wi ll rev ers e o nl y if “ th e ev id en ce i s s o h ig hl y pre jud ic ia l as to be in cu rab le by the tri al co urt's adm on it io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Slo cu m , 70 8 F .2d 58 7, 5 98 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). Ru le 40 4( b) pro vi de s t ha t “ [e]vi de nc e o f ot he r cri m es , wron gs , or a ct s i s n ot adm is si bl e to pro ve th e ch arac te r of a pe rs on in ord er t o s ho w act io n i n c on fo rm it y th erewi th ,” bu t ca n b e ad m it te d fo r ot he r pu rp os es . Fed .R.Evi d. 4 04 (b ). Ru le 40 4( b) on ly app li es to ev id en ce t ha t i s ex tri ns ic to th e ch arg edoff en se s. Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3dat 1 34 4. Ev id en ce i s n otex tri ns ic , andth eref or e fal ls ou ts id e th e sc op e of Ru le 40 4( b) , if i t i s: “ (1 ) anun ch arg edoff en se whi ch aro se ou t o f th e sa m e tra ns act io n o r se rie s o f tr an sa ct io ns as t he ch arg edoff en se , (2) ne ces sa ry

to co m pl et e th e st ory

of the cri m e, or

(3) in ex tri cab ly int ert win edwith t he ev id en ce reg ard in g t he ch arg edoff en se .” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) .

7Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g Sp ei gh t’s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al aft er Det ect iv e Per ez t es ti fie d t ha t h e fo un d asm al l am ou ntof m ari

juan a o n S pe ig ht ’s per so n. Th e g ov ern m en t i nt ro du cedsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o f Sp ei gh t’s g ui lt , in cl ud in g t he tes ti m on y of t he law en fo rcem en t of fic ers , Spe ig ht ’s ownco nf es si on , andth e te st im on y of h is bro th er Leo na rd . In li gh t o f th atov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e, itis un li ke ly tha t Det ect iv e Per ez’s b rie f st at em en t ab ou t t he m ari

juan a h ada si gn ifi can t i m pa cton th e jury’ s v erd ic t. Th e co urt’s i ns tru ct io n t o t he jury to di sr eg ardth attes ti m on y was s uf fic ie ntto cu re an y pr ejud ic e th atth e d et ect iv e’s rem arkm ig htha ve cau se d. Se e Slo cu m , 70 8 F .2dat 59 8. Inad di ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m itpl ai n e rro r by fail in g t o su a sp on te ex cl ud e th e ev id en ce tha t Sp ei gh t h adbe endri vi ng on a su sp en de d l ic en se . Tha t t es ti m on y

was n otex tri ns ic un de r Ru le 40 4( b) be cau se itwas n eces sa ry to co m pl et e th e st ory

of S pe ig ht ’s arres t. Se e Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3dat 1 34 4. Al so , th at te st im on y was n otpa rti cu larly preju di ci al , so itli ke ly didno t h av e an y im pa cton th e jury’ s v erd ic t. Sp ei gh t h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t t he adm is si on of t ha t t es ti m on y affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Se e Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3dat 1 29 9. III. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a co nt in uanc e fo r anab us e o f 8di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Do ug la s , 48 9 F .3d11 17 , 11 28 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e

ex am in e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on “ in li gh t o f th e ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt ed , fo cu si ng up on th e rea so ns forth e co nt in ua nc e o ffer edto th e tr ia l co urt wh enth e reque stwas d en ie d.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Rel ev an t fa ct or s i nc lu de : (1 ) th e d il ig en ce o f th e d efen se in in te rv ie win g t he witne ss an d pr oc ur in g h is tes ti m on y ; (2 ) th e p ro babi li ty of ob ta in in g t he tes ti m on y wit hi n areas on ab le ti m e; (3) th e sp eci fic it y with wh ic h t he de fen se was ab le to de sc rib e th e wit ne ss ’s exp ect edkn owl ed ge or t es ti m on y ; an d (4 ) th e d eg ree t o wh ic h s uc h t es ti m on y was e xp ect edto be fav or ab le to th e acc us ed , andth e u ni qu e o r cu m ul at iv e n atur e o f th e te st im on y . Id. The d efen da ntm

us t s ho w th atth e d en ia l o f a co nt in ua nc e cau se d h im

“ sp eci fic subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . To es tabl is h s pe ci fic pr ejud ic e, th e d efen da nt“ m us t i de nt ify relev an t, n on -cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce t ha t wou ldha ve be enpre se nt edif h is reque stfora co nt inua nc e h adbe engra nt ed .” Uni te d Sta tes v. S

ag et , 99 1 F .2d70 2, 7 08 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws co ns ti tu ti on al is su es de no vo . Dougl as , 48 9 F .3dat 11 26 . The Si xt h Am en dm en t p ro te ct s a c riminal de fen dant ’s rig htto co nf ro ntth e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t h im . U.S. Con st . am en d. VI. “ The pri nc ip al pro te ct io n d eri ve d fro m th e co nf ro nt at io n ri gh t i s t he rig htto effe ct iv e cro ss -ex am in at io n o f th e [g ov ern m en t’s] witn es se s.” Ch ilde rs v. Flo yd , 64 2 F .3d95 3, 9 72 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) ( en ba nc ), pe t. fo r ce rt . fi le d , (U.S. Ju ly 6, 20 11 ) (No . 11 -4 2) . 9Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g Sp ei gh t’s m ot io n fo r a co nt in ua nc e. Sp ei gh t i nf orm edth e d is tri ctco urt t ha t h is ne w witne ss wou ldreb utLeon ard ’s tes ti m on y , bu t h e d idno t p ro vi de an y ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n abo utth e wit ne ss . He di d n otde sc rib e th e wit ne ss ’s ex pe ct edkn owl ed ge or t es ti m on y with s pe ci fic it y , no r di d h e ex pl ai n h ow t he wit ne ss ’s tes ti m on y

wou ldbe no n- cu m

ul at iv e an d fa vo rab le to hi s d efen se . Se e Dou gl as , 48 9 F .3dat 1 12 8. Th eref or e, itwas re as on ab le forth e d is tri ctco urt t o de ny the m ot io n fo r a co nt inuanc e. Mo reo ve r, th e d en ia l o f a co nt in ua nc e d idno t v io la te Sp ei gh t’s ri gh t t o co nf ro nt at io n. Al th ou gh Sp ei gh t co nt en ds th atth e ri gh t t o c on fro nt at io n a ls o in cl ud es th e ri gh t t o c al l re bu tt al witne ss es , he d oe s n otcit e to an y pre ced en t t o supp ort t ha t ar gu m en t. Sp ei gh t was gi ve n aful l an d fa ir o pp ortu ni ty to cro ss -ex am in e Leo na rd , whi ch is all th atth e Co nf ro nt at io n C laus e requi res . Se e Ch ilde rs , 64 2 F .3dat 9 72 . IV. A di st ric t co urt’s en fo rcem en t o f th e Je nc ks Act’s d is cl os ur e requi rem en ts is rev ie wedforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. S ch ie r , 43 8 F .3d11 04 , 11 07 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . The J en ck s Actrequi res th e g ov ern m en t t o “ pr oduc e an y st at em en t . . . of t he witne ss in th e p os se ss io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s wh ic h re la te s t o 10th e subjec t m at te r as to whi ch th e wit ne ss ha s t es ti fie d.” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 50 0( b) .

“ A st at em en t i s ‘inth e p os se ss io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s’ forJen ck s Actpu rp os es if itis in th e p os se ss io n o f a fed eral pro se cu to ria l ag en cy .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ca gn in a , 69 7 F .2d91 5, 9 22 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). Inth is cas e, Sp ei gh t h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t v io la te d t he Je nc ks Act. Sp ei gh t ar gu es th atth e p ro se cu ti on sh ou ldha ve tu rn edov er reco rd in gs of Leo na rd ’s tel ep ho ne cal ls fro m th e Pi ne ll as Co un ty Jail , bu t t he re i s no th in g i n t he reco rdto su gg es t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t ac tu al ly pos se ss edth os e reco rd in gs . In fa ct , def

en se co un se l ac kn owl ed ge d b el ow t ha t t he go ve rn m en t pr ob ab ly didno t h av e th e rec or di ng s. Mo reo ve r, Sp ei gh t h as no t es tabl is he d t ha t th e rec or de d c al ls were re la te d t o t he subjec t m at te r of Leon ard ’s tes ti m on y . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 50 0( b) . Becau se Sp ei gh t h as no t i de nt ifi edan y sp eci fic m at eri al s rel ev an t t o Leo na rd ’s tes ti m on y th atth e g ov ern m en t h adin it s p os se ss io n b ut fai le d t o d is cl os e, he ha s fa il edto est ab li sh a vi ol at io n o f th e Je nc ks Act. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 50 0( b) ; Ca gn in a , 69 7 F .2dat 9 22 . In l ig htof t he for eg oi ng , itis un ne ces sary

forus to ad dr es s t he go ve rn m en t’s al te rn at iv e arg um en t t ha t t hi s i ss ue is un rev ie wab le be cau se Sp ei gh t fa il edto ob ta ina ru li ng fro m th e d is tri ctco urt. Acco rd in gl y , aft er re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm Sp ei gh t’s co nv ic ti on s. 11AFFIRMED.

12