FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T DECEMBER 15, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 14 53 1
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 20 8- CR-C AP-7 -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us GARW ORH W ILLIAMS, ANTHONYM. W ILLIAMS, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a (Dece m be r 15 , 20 09 )
Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BIRC H andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Inth is m ul ti -d efen da ntcri m in al ap pe al , Garworh Wil li am s (“ G. W il li am s” )
an d An th on y

W il li am s (“ A. W il li am s” ) ap pe al th ei r co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es . G. W il li am s was co nv ic te d o f co ns pi racy to c omm itba nkfrau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 1 34 9, an d t he di stric t co urt i m po se d abe lo w-g ui de li ne sen te nc e o f 44
m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. A. W il li am s was co nv ic te d o f co ns pi racy to c omm itba nk frau d and19 co un ts of b an k fr au d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 1 34 4, 1 34 9. Th e di st ric t co urt s en te nc edA. W il li am s t o 3 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, wh ic h i s atth e bo tt om of the gu id el in e ran ge . The is su es pre se nt edon ap pe al are: (1 ) Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g G. Will ia m s’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al ; (2 ) Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g G. Will ia m s’s m ot io n fo r a
ne w tri al ba se d o n a ll eg ed Bra dy /Gi gl io vi ol at io ns ; 1 (3 ) Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he de fen da nt s’ reque stfora co nt in ua nc e; an d (4 ) Whe th er t he de fen dant s’ sen te nc es were s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e. 2 Brady v. M

aryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. C t. 1194 (1963); Giglio v

. United States , 405 U.S. 1 150, 92 S. Ct . 763 (1972). G. Will iams appea ls issues 1, 2 and 3. A. W illiams appea ls issues 3 and 4. Howeve r, G. 2 Wil liams a lso state s in his brief, “Pursuant to F .R.A.P. 28(i), Appellant Ga rworh Williams adopts by ref ere nce all portions of the brief of Appellant Anthony Wil liams that is not inconsistent with the 2The co urt re vi ews de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce cl ai m s, v ie win g th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t an d d rawi ng all
reas on ab le in fere nc es infav or of t he gu il ty verd ic t. Uni te d Sta te s v. An de rs on , 28 9 F .3d13 21 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The co urt wi ll affi rm th e jury’ s v erd ic t
un le ss un de r no reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce co ul d t he jury ha ve fou nd th e d efen da ntgu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d Sta te s v. C ama rg oVerg ar a , 57 F.3d99 3, 9 97 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). The co urt re vi ews a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b as ed
on a Bra dy vi ol at io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. K er se y , 13 0 F .3d 14 63 , 14 65 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). If a d efen da ntdo es no t arti cu la te a Bra dy vi ol at io n in hi s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, t he co urt n eedon ly con du cta pl ai n e rro r rev ie w. Id

. The co urt re vi ews a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r co nt in uanc e o nl y fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. Va ll ad ar es , 54 4 F .3d12 57 , 12 61 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The co urt re vi ews a se nt en ce fo r reas on ab le ne ss un de r a “ de fere nt ia l ab us eof -d is cret io n s ta nd ard .” Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 1 (2 00 7) . In re vi ewin g t he ul ti m at e se nt en ce i m po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r
reas on ab le ne ss , th e co urt co ns id ers th e fi na l s en te nc e init s en ti ret y in li gh t o f th e
fac ts and arguments in Appellant Gar worh Willi ams’s brief

.” (G . Wil liams’s Blue B rief at vii). 3fact or s s etfor th in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3 55 3( a). Uni te d Sta te s v. Th oma s , 44 6 F .3d

13 48 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e fi rs t co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g G. Will ia m s’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al be cau se th e g ov ern m en t pr ov edth atG. W il li am s co ns pi redto co m m itba nkfrau d b y

pu tt in g o n e vi de nc e in th e fo rm of Ho ff’s te st im on y

im pl ic at in g G. Will ia m s an d c on ne ct in g h im to ot he r
co ns pi rat or s, an d t he factth atG. W il li am s’s co nduc t m at ch edth e act io ns of a ll th e ot he r co ns pi rat or s i n t he sch em e. Als o, t he jury was free to an al y ze G. W il li am s’s cred ib il it y

when he tes ti fie d i n h is own de fen se an d t o d is be li ev e h is tes ti m on y in who le or i n p art . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Br ow n , 53 F.3d31 2, 3 14 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Seco nd , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y de ni edG. W il li am s’s
m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b as edon all eg ed Bra dy /Gi gl io vi ol at io ns . The u nd is cl os ed st at em en ts were n otsu ffi ci en tl y ex cu lp at ory

of G. Will ia m s t o b e m at eri al un de r Bra dy , andth ei r li m it edim pe ach m en t v al ue wou ldha ve be enm erel y cu m ul at iv e,
as Hoff ha d a lre ady

be enim pe ach edth ro ug h c ro ss -ex am in at io n a ndby N orm an
an d F ras ie r’s pl ea co ll oq ui es . The s ta te m en ts als o wer e n otex cu lp at ory si m pl y be cau se th ey

om it te d re fere nc e to G. W il li am s’s cr im in al co nduc t. Fi na ll y , we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t t he re was no reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t t he

4ou tc om e o f th e p ro ceed in gs wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t h adth e st at em en ts be en

di sc lo se d. Thi rd , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g t he de fen da nt s’ reque st s fo r a co nt in ua nc e. The d efen da nt s m ov edfora
co nt in ua nc e to ob ta in th e li ve tes ti m on y of No rm anan d F ras ie r; h owe ve r, th ei r pl ea co ll oq ui es were re adin to ev id en ce attri al , so th e jury hadth e o pp ortu ni ty to
rev ie w th ei r ve rs io ns of t he ev en ts at i ss ue . Fi na ll y , we affi rm

A. W il li am s’s 3 7- m on th wit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce be cau se hi s ar gu m en t t ha t i t i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le is m eri tl es s. We need
no t re vi ew G. W il li am s’s s en te nc e b ecau se hi s at te m ptto ad op t b y

refe ren ce A. W il li am s’s s en te nc in g re as on ab le ne ss arg um en t fa il s fo r la ck of s pe ci fic it y . Even if, h owe ve r, we rev ie wedG. W il li am s’s s en te nc e o n the m eri ts , we wou ld
co nc lu de th atitto o was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le
. Fo r th e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we af firm de fen da nt s’ con vi ct io ns an d
se nt en ces . AFFIRMED.

5