FI L ED

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T

MAY 13, 2011

J OHN L EY

CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 5 1 9 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 4

- 0 0 3 0 8

- C R

- B A E

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

,

v e r s u s

C H A R L E S B O W E

,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 5 2 6 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o s

. 0 8

- 0 0 0 3 3

- C V

- B A E

- 4

0 4

- 0 0 3 0 8

- C R

- B A E

C H A R L E S A L E X A N D E R B O W E

,

P e t i t i o n e r

- A p p e l l a n t

,

v e r s u s

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A

,

R e s p o n d e n t

- A p p e l l e e

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l s f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( M a y 1 3

, 2 0 1 1 )

B e f o r e T J O F L A T

, W I L S O N a n d R I P P L E

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. *

P E R C U R I A M :

O n A u g u s t 3

, 2 0 0 5

, C h a r l e s B o w e

, a B a h a m i a n b u s i n e s s m a n

, w a s c o n v i c t e d

o f c o n s p i r i n g t o i m p o r t

, p o s s e s s

, a n d d i s t r i b u t e f i v e o r m o r e k i l o g r a m s o f c o c a i n e

,

a l o n g w i t h t h e r e l a t e d s u b s t a n t i v e o f f e n s e s o f i m p o r t i n g a n d p o s s e s s i n g w i t h i n t e n t

t o d i s t r i b u t e f

i v e o r m o r e k i l o g r a m s o f c o c a i n e

. F o l l o w i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n

, B o w e

p u r s u e d p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 5 a n d m o v e d f o r a n e w t r i a l

p u r s u a n t t o F e d e r a l R u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 3 ( “ R u l e 3 3 ” )

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

d e n i e d b o t h m o t i o n s

. B o w e a p p e a l s t h o s e r u l i n g s t o t h i s C o u r t

, a n d w e a f f i r m

.

I

.

T h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s c a s e a g a i n s t B o w e w a s b u i l t a r o u n d t h e t e s t i m o n y o f c o

c o n s p i r a t o r D a m i a n C o v e r l e y

. I n 2 0 0 4

, C o v e r l e y w a s c a u g h t r e d

- h a n d e d b y l a w

e n f o r c e m e n t r e c e i v i n g a s h i p m e n t o f e i g h t k i l o g r a m s o f c o c a i n e f l o w n i n t o

S a v a n n a h

, G e o r g i a b y a g o v e r n m e n t i n f o r m a n t

. H e i m m e d i a t e l y b e g a n

Honora ble Kenne th F. Ripple, United States Circuit J udg e for the Seventh Circuit, *

sitti ng by desig nation.

2c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h l a w e n f o r c e m e n t

. I n t h e w o r d s o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e b e l o w i n

h i s R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ( “ R & R ” ) t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t :

F o l l o w i n g h i s a r r e s t u p o n r e c e i v i n g 8 k i l o g r a m s o f

c o c a i n e f

l o w n i n t o S a v a n n a h a b o a r d a p r i v a t e p l a n e

p i l o t e d b y R o b e r t N y l u n d

, C o v e r l e y i d e n t i f i e d B o w e a s

t h e f i n a n c i e r o f t h e d r u g i m p o r t a t i o n s c h e m e a n d

c o o p e r a t e d w i t h t h e a g e n t s i n m a k i n g n u m e r o u s r e c o r d e d

c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h B o w e

. T h e s e c o n v e r s a t i o n s

, C o v e r l e y e x p l a i n e d

, i n v o l v e d c e r t a i n c o d e t e r m s f o r t h e

c o c a i n e t r a n s a c t i o n

, i n c l u d i n g t h e n u m b e r o f k i l o g r a m s

i n v o l v e d a n d t h e p r o c e e d s r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e s a l e

. A t t h e

a g e n t s ’ b e h e s t

, C o v e r l e y a l s o e n g a g e d i n a f a c e

- t o

- f a c e

m e e t i n g w i t h B o w e a t a H o m e D e p o t p a r k i n g l o t i n

W e s t o n

, F l o r i d a t o m a k e a c o n t r o l l e d d e l i v e r y o f t h e c a s h

p r o c e e d s

. D u r i n g t h a t m e e t i n g ( s e c r e t l y r e c o r d e d b y t h e

a g e n t s )

, B o w e a n d C o v e r l e y d i s c u s s [ s i c ] “ t h e 8 ” a n d t h e

f a c t t h a t 3 o f “ t h e 8 ” w e r e n o g o o d ( w h i c h C o v e r l e y

o f f e r e d a s a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r r e c e i v i n g o n l y “ 9 0 ” f o r t h e

s a l e )

.

R & R a t 3 4 n

. 2 2 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. A f t e r C o v e r l e y d e l i v e r e d t h e c a s h

, B o w e w a s

a r r e s t e d a n d p r o s e c u t e d

.

A c c o r d i n g t o h i s t r i a l t e s t i m o n y

, C o v e r l e y c o n s p i r e d w i t h B o w e

, a m a n

n a m e d O m a r T h e o p h i l u s

, a n d o t h e r s o v e r a p e r i o d o f s e v e r a l y e a r s t o p r o c u r e

c h e a p n a r c o t i c s f

r o m s o u r c e s t h r o u g h o u t S o u t h a n d C e n t r a l A m e r i c a

, s m u g g l e

t h e m i n t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s v i a t h e B a h a m a s

, a n d s e l l t h e m f o r p r o f i t

. B o w e

a l l e g e d l y f

i n a n c e d t h e s e o p e r a t i o n s

, r e c e i v i n g t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m t h e s a l e s a f

t e r

C o v e r l e y s m u g g l e d t h e d r u g s i n t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d s o l d t h e m

. T h e r e c o r d e d

3c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n B o w e a n d C o v e r l e y w e r e p l a y e d f o r t h e j u r y

, a n d

C o v e r l e y t e s t i f

i e d t h a t t h e c o d e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s r e f e r r e d t o t h e s a l e o f c o c a i n e

. A t

t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e t r i a l

, t h e j u r y f o u n d B o w e g u i l t y o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d

o f f e n s e s

.

I I

.

W e b e g i n b y a d d r e s s i n g B o w e ’ s c l a i m t h a t h e w a s d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e

a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l i n v i o l a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t

. S e e

g e n e r a l l y S t r i c k l a n d v

. W a s h i n g t o n

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. 6 6 8

, 1 0 4 S

. C t

. 2 0 5 2 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. T h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h i s c l a i m o n i t s m e r i t s

. W h e n r e v i e w i n g t h e d e n i a l o f a

§ 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n

, w e r e v i e w t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t f o r c l e a r e r r o r a n d i t s

c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w d e n o v o

. R h o d e v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 5 8 3 F

. 3 d 1 2 8 9

, 1 2 9 0 ( 1 1 t h

C i r

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( p e r c u r i a m )

.

F o l l o w i n g B o w e ’ s i n d i c t m e n t

, h i s a t t o r n e y w o r k e d w i t h p r o s e c u t o r s t o

n e g o t i a t e a p l e a a g r e e m e n t

. A l l e g e d l y

, c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o p r e p a r e f

o r t r i a l

, i n t h e

e v e n t t h a t a s u i t a b l e p l e a a g r e e m e n t c o u l d n o t b e r e a c h e d

. T h o u g h c o u n s e l s e c u r e d

a n a c c e p t a b l e p l e a o f

f e r f r o m t h e G o v e r n m e n t s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l d a t e

, t h e t r i a l

c o u r t i n d i c a t e d i t w o u l d n o t a c c e p t a p l e a a g r e e m e n t t h a t l i m i t e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n a r y

a b i l i t y t o c o n s i d e r t h e f

u l l r a n g e o f B o w e ’ s r e l e v a n t c o n d u c t ( i

. e

. , t h e a g g r e g a t e

w e i g h t o f a n y d r u g s f

o u n d t o b e p a r t o f t h e s a m e c o n s p i r a c y ) w h e n d e t e r m i n i n g

4B o w e ’ s s e n t e n c e

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, B o w e c h o s e t o t a k e h i s c h a n c e s a t t r i a l

.

G i v e n c o u n s e l ’ s a d m i t t e d l a c k o f t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n

, B o w e i m m e d i a t e l y h i r e d

a s e a s o n e d t r i a l a t t o r n e y o u t o f A t l a n t a

. B o w e ’ s n e w c o u n s e l s u c c e e d e d i n 1

s e c u r i n g a b r i e f c o n t i n u a n c e

, b u t w a s u n a b l e t o o b t a i n f u r t h e r e x t e n s i o n s o f t i m e o r

l e a v e f r o m t h e c o u r t t o d e p o s e o u t

- o f

- j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t n e s s e s

. A s a r e s u l t

, B o w e

c l a i m s h e w a s f

o r c e d t o p r o c e e d t o t r i a l w o e f u l l y u n p r e p a r e d

.

B o w e f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t n o t o n l y w e r e h i s a t t o r n e y s u n p r e p a r e d

, b u t t h e y

w e r e u n a b l e t o m a k e f

u l l u s e o f w h a t f

e w p r e p a r a t i o n s t h e y h a d m a d e

. C o u n s e l

a l l e g e d l y i n f

o r m e d s e v e r a l t r i a l w i t n e s s e s t h a t t h e y w o u l d n o t n e e d t o b e p r e s e n t

u n t i l d a y t h r e e o f t h e t r i a l

. T h e t r i a l

, h o w e v e r

, m o v e d m o r e q u i c k l y t h a n e x p e c t e d

.

T h o u g h c o u n s e l a l l e g e d l y a t t e m p t e d t o s t a l l b y p r e s e n t i n g s e v e r a l “ f i l l e r ”

w i t n e s s e s

, B o w e w a s u l t i m a t e l y f o r c e d t o r e s t h i s c a s e b e f o r e a l l o f h i s w i t n e s s e s

a r r i v e d

. 2

B o w e c l a i m s t h e s e u n p r o f e s s i o n a l e r r o r s v i o l a t e d h i s S i x t h A m e n d m e n t

r i g h t s

.

A

.

T h e f e d e r a l l a w g o v e r n i n g i n e f f e c t i v e

- a s s i s t a n c e

- o f

- c o u n s e l c l a i m s i s w e l l

Bow e also re tained the se rvice s of his orig inal attorney and hire d local counse l. 1

We note that the district court wa s highly skeptical that B owe wa s actua lly having 2

logistica l difficulty

producing said witnesses.

5s e t t l e d

. S e e g e n e r a l l y S t r i c k l a n d

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. 6 6 8

. “ A n i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m

h a s t w o c o m p o n e n t s : A p e t i t i o n e r m u s t s h o w t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e w a s

d e f i c i e n t

, a n d t h a t t h e d e f

i c i e n c y p r e

j u d i c e d t h e d e f

e n s e

. ” W i g g i n s v

. S m i t h

, 5 3 9

U

. S

. 5 1 0

, 5 2 1

, 1 2 3 S

. C t

. 2 5 2 7 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( c i t i n g S t r i c k l a n d

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. a t 6 8 7 )

. U n d e r

t h e p e r f o r m a n c e p r o n g

, a d e f

e n d a n t m u s t s h o w t h a t h i s “ c o u n s e l ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

f e l l b e l o w a n o b

j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s

. . . u n d e r p r e v a i l i n g

p r o f e s s i o n a l n o r m s

. ” S t r i c k l a n d

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. a t 6 8 8

. U n d e r t h e p r e j u d i c e p r o n g

, a

d e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w “ a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t

, b u t f o r c o u n s e l ’ s

u n p r o f e s s i o n a l e r r o r s

, t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n t

. ” I d

.

a t 6 9 4

.

B

.

A t b o t t o m

, t h i s c a s e t u r n s o n w h e t h e r B o w e ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s u n d e r m i n e o u r

c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

. S e e S t r i c k l a n d

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. a t 6 9 4

( d e f i n i n g “ p r e

j u d i c e ” )

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a s s u m e d c o u n s e l h a d c o m m i t t e d

u n p r o f e s s i o n a l e r r o r s

, b u t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t B o w e c o u l d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t

, b u t f o r

t h o s e e r r o r s

, t h e r e w a s a r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e t r i a l w o u l d

h a v e b e e n d i f

f e r e n t

. S e e i d

. W e f

i n d n o e r r o r i n i t s t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s

. 3

M u c h o f t h e e v i d e n c e B o w e o f f e r e d t o s u p p o r t h i s i n e f

f e c t i v e

- a s s i s t a n c e

The district cour

t adopted the mag istrate judg e’s R& R as its opini on. 3

6c l a i m

— s u c h a s t h a t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d e c l a r a t i o n s o f M a r v i n M i l l e r

, P h i l l i p M i l l e r

,

a n d C h r i s t i n e B o w e

— w o u l d h a v e b e e n r e l e v a n t a n d s o m e w h a t p r o b a t i v e a t t r i a l b y

c a l l i n g i n t o q u e s t i o n m i n o r a s p e c t s o f C o v e r l e y ’ s n a r r a t i v e

. H o w e v e r

, f o r t h e

r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n t h e m a g i s t r a t e ’ s R & R

, i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e s i m p l y f a l l s s h o r t o f t h e

S t r i c k l a n d p r e

j u d i c e t h r e s h o l d

. L i k e w i s e

, t h e T r o y J o h n s o n

, F r a n z B o w e

, T

.

L a r a m o r e

, a n d O m a r M o o r e e v i d e n c e

— w h i l e s l i g h t l y p r o b a t i v e

— a d d s l i t t l e t o

B o w e ’ s e f

f o r t s t o s a t i s f

y h i s p r e j u d i c e b u r d e n

. F i n a l l y

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y 4

e x c l u d e d t h e r e m a i n i n g e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d v i a t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f B o w e ’ s § 2 2 5 5

i n v e s t i g a t o r a s i n c o m p e t e n t h e a r s a y

. A s n o t e d b y t h e m a g i s t r a t e a n d e m p h a s i z e d 5

We cannot ag ree with the Gover nment’s contention that we must completely disreg ard 4

this evidence beca

use it impeache s statements not made a t trial.

First of a ll, one impeache s witnesses, not statements. Second, thoug h it is t rue tha t the

defe nse would have had to lay the prope r founda tion to establish thi s evidenc e’s r eleva nce—viz.

establish in the rec ord that Coverle y had made the statements the de fense soug ht to prove

false—ha ving done so, it would certainly have be en entitled to attac k Coverley ’s cr edibility by

demonstrating that his narra tive to law enf

orce ment contained f

alsehoods.

Bow e ar g ued that var ious statements of co- conspirator Omar The ophilus, offere d 5

second- hand throug h his investigator ’s af fidavit, should come in as “ statements ag ainst interest”

falling within Fede ral Rule of Evide nce ( “F RE”) 804(b) (3)’ s exception to the hearsa y bar. The

district court disag ree d, decla ring that “say

ing tha t another w as not involved is not the same as

say ing one self wa s involved.” R&R a t 31. Bowe arg ues that this ruling ig nores a critica l aspec t

of Theophilus’s a lleg ed stateme nt not covere d by the cour t’s rationale : his claim that the drug s

for the 2004 tr ansac tion were “fr onted,” a s opposed to purcha sed. This descr iption of

Theophilus’s cr ime, Bow e ar g ues, qualifies a s a statement a g ainst interest and e viscerates

Coverley ’s claim that B owe f inance d the drug purcha se. “F ronted” drug s, by definition, are not

purcha sed. Additionally , DEA a g ent Kevin B y rnes testified tha t he believe d the drug s had bee n

fronted, pr oviding the r equisite corr oboration re quired unde r the F eder al Rules.

Whil e the que stion is a close one, we believe the statement in question does not qualify

as a state ment ag ainst interest under FRE 804(b) (3). I n Wil liamson v. United States, 512 U.S.

594, 114 S. Ct . 2431 (1994), the Supre me Court opted for a narr ow construc tion of what

statements qualify

for the e x ception, limiting its application to specific statements or re marks

7b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

, C o v e r l e y ’ s a c c u s a t i o n s w e r e “ p o w e r f u l [ l y ] c o r r o b o r a t e d ” b y

t h e r e c o r d e d

, p r e

- a r r e s t c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e n B o w e a n d C o v e r l e y

. A s a r e s u l t

,

t h o u g h B o w e h a s m a d e s o m e s h o w i n g t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y s ’ a l l e g e d e r r o r s c o u l d h a v e

i m p a c t e d t h e t r i a l ’ s r e s u l t

, w h e n v i e w e d c o l l e c t i v e l y

, h i s a l l e g a t i o n s h a v e n o t

s h o w n t h a t s u c h a n i m p a c t w a s r e a s o n a b l y p r o b a b l e

.

I I I

.

B o w e a l s o a l l e g e s t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t s u p p r e s s e d e v i d e n c e f a v o r a b l e t o

h i m t h a t i t h a d a d u t y t o d i s c l o s e u n d e r t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h

A m e n d m e n t

. S e e g e n e r a l l y B r a d y v

. M a r y l a n d

, 3 7 3 U

. S

. 8 3

, 8 3 S

. C t

. 1 1 9 4

( 1 9 6 3 )

. H e p u r s u e d r e l i e f o n t h i s c l a i m v i a b o t h h i s § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n a n d h i s s e p a r a t e

m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l u n d e r R u l e 3 3

. B e c a u s e B o w e ’ s e n t i t l e m e n t t o r e l i e f u n d e r

that are individually

self-inc ulpatory

in the context of broader self-inc ulpatory

narr ative and

excluding those stateme nts that are me rely collater al to those specif ic, self- inculpatory

piece s.

I d. at 599. The e valuation of whe ther a ny particula r statement is, in fac t, self-inculpa tory is

highly context specific. I d. at 604–05. And “[t]he question under Rule 804(b)( 3) is alway s

whether the statement wa s sufficiently ag ainst the dec lara

nt’s penal inter est ‘that a r easona ble

person in the de clar ant’s position would not have made the statement unless be lieving it to be

true.’” I d. at 603–04.

Her e, we see nothinginhere ntly self-inc ulpatory

about Theophilus’s stateme nt that the

drug s in question were fronted, a s opposed to purcha sed. That pa rticular f act or rema rk, while

part of a broade r self- inculpatory

narr ative, did not threa ten to expose Theophilus to any

marg inally

g rea ter pe nal culpability , such that a r easona ble per son who had a lrea dy admitted to

committing the under ly ing c rime would not have made it had it not been tr ue. To the c ontrary , it

might be r easona

ble to assume that The ophilus, having a lrea dy admitted his involvement in the

crime, w ould have be en more than happy to assist his associate’s ef forts to exculpate himself by

providing this particular state ment to Bowe ’s investig ator. I n short, the spec ific re mark on

which B owe se eks to rely lacks the ne cessa

ry hallmarks of 804( b)(3) reliability , postWil liamson.

8e i t h e r m o t i o n f l o w s f r o m t h e s a m e a n a l y s i s

, w e a d d r e s s t h e s u b s t a n c e o f h i s

m o t i o n s t o g e t h e r

. 6

A

.

A f t e r B o w e f

i l e d h i s § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n

, h i s p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n i n v e s t i g a t o r

d i s c o v e r e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t a p e

- r e c o r d e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e n C o v e r l e y a n d a

J o h n M a j o r ( t h e “ M a

j o r T a p e s ” ) t h a t w e r e m a d e a f t e r M a j o r w a s a r r e s t e d b y

, a n d

d e c i d e d t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h

, l a w e n f o r c e m e n t

. B o w e s o u g h t t o a m e n d h i s m o t i o n ’ s

c l a i m s u n d e r B r a d y t o i n c l u d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e

.

T h e c o u r t b e l o w p u r p o r t e d l y d e n i e d B o w e l e a v e t o a m e n d h i s p e t i t i o n

, b u t i t d i d s o

i n t e r m s t h a t e s s e n t i a l l y r u l e d o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c l a i m a s i f i t h a d b e e n s o

I n addition to the alleg edly suppressed ta

pe re cording s discussed below, B owe a rg ues 6

the statements of O mar The ophilus constitut e “ne w evidenc e” e ntitli ng him to a new trial unde r

Rule 33.

Ordinar ily , a petitioner se eking relief under Rule 33 on the ba sis of newly discovere d

evidenc e must show four thing s:

(1) that the evidenc e was newly discovere d and was unknown to the

defe ndant[] at the time of the tria l;

(2) that the evidenc e was materia l, not mere ly cumulative or

impeaching ;

(3) that it would proba

bly produce an ac quittal; and

(4) that failure to lear

n of the evidenc e was due to no lack of

diligenc e on the pa

rt of the de fenda

nt[ ].

United States v. Antone, 603 F .2d 566, 568–69 (5th Cir. 1979). (Note , in Bonne r v. City of

Prichard, 661 F .2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc) , we a dopted as binding prec edent a ll

decisions of the f

ormer F ifth Circuit decided be fore October 1, 1981.)

Her e, B owe ha s made no showing that he could not have obtained the “ evidenc e”

possessed by

Theophilus with the exercise of rea sonable dilig ence at the time of trial.

Consequently , this claim fails, and the re maining substanc e of his Rule 33 motion tracks his §

2255 Br ady

claim.

9a m e n d e d

.

B o w e a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b o t h i n d e n y i n g h i m l e a v e t o a m e n d

h i s § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n a n d i n i t s s u b s t a n t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e m e r i t s o f h i s a l l e g a t i o n s

.

H e s e e k s

— a t a m i n i m u m

— r e m a n d f o r a n i n c a m e r a r e v i e w o f t h e M a j o r T a p e s

.

W e a g r e e w i t h B o w e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y d i s a l l o w i n g h i s a m e n d m e n t ; 7

b u t

, w e a f

f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t o n t h e b a s i s t h a t B o w e h a s n o t a l l e g e d

f a c t s d e m o n s t r a t i n g a n e n t i t l e m e n t t o f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

.

B

.

1

.

U n d e r B r a d y v

. M a r y l a n d

, p r o s e c u t o r s h a v e a d u e

- p r o c e s s o b l i g a t i o n t o

d i s c l o s e “ e v i d e n c e f

a v o r a b l e t o a n a c c u s e d

. . . w h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e i s m a t e r i a l

e i t h e r t o g u i l t o r t o p u n i s h m e n t

, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e g o o d f a i t h o r b a d f

a i t h o f t h e

p r o s e c u t i o n

. ” 3 7 3 U

. S

. a t 8 7

. “ ‘ T h r e e e l e m e n t s e s t a b l i s h a B r a d y v i o l a t i o n : ( 1 ) t h e

e v i d e n c e m u s t b e f

a v o r a b l e t o t h e a c c u s e d

, b e c a u s e i t i s e i t h e r e x c u l p a t o r y o r

i m p e a c h i n g ; ( 2 ) t h e e v i d e n c e m u s t h a v e b e e n s u p p r e s s e d b y t h e S t a t e

, e i t h e r

w i l l f u l l y o r i n a d v e r t e n t l y ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e e v i d e n c e m u s t b e m a t e r i a l s o a s t o e s t a b l i s h

p r e j u d i c e

. ’ ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. N a r a n j o

, 6 3 4 F

. 3 d 1 1 9 8

, 1 2 1 2 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 1 )

( q u o t i n g S t e p h e n s v

. H a l l

, 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 1 1 9 5

, 1 2 0 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) )

. “ M a t e r i a l i t y ”

Even the G overnme nt conce des the district cour t should have allowe d the amendme nt. 7

10u n d e r B r a d y t r a c k s t h e p r e j u d i c e s t a n d a r d u n d e r S t r i c k l a n d

. S e e J e n n i n g s v

.

M c D o n o u g h

, 4 9 0 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 0

, 1 2 4 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ T h e p r e j u d i c e p r o n g o f

S t r i c k l a n d i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e s a m e s t a n d a r d u s e d f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e m a t e r i a l i t y o f

e v i d e n c e u n d e r B r a d y

, i

. e

. , ‘ a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t

, b u t f o r c o u n s e l ’ s

u n p r o f e s s i o n a l e r r o r s

, t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n t

. ’ ”

( q u o t i n g S t r i c k l a n d

, 4 6 6 U

. S

. a t 6 9 4 ) )

.

B o w e a r g u e s h e i s e n t i t l e d t o f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s o n h i s B r a d y c l a i m

b e c a u s e h e h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e M a j o r T a p e s a r e e x c u l p a t o r y o r i m p e a c h i n g

o f C o v e r l e y ’ s t e s t i m o n y

, t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t l i k e l y h a d a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e

k n o w l e d g e o f t h o s e t a p e s

, a n d t h a t d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e M a j o r T a p e s c o u l d h a v e l e d t o

a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n

d i f f e r e n t

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t B o w e ’ s a r g u m e n t w a s l a c k i n g w i t h

r e s p e c t t o B r a d y ’ s s e c o n d a n d t h i r d p r o n g s

, d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t B o w e m a d e a n

i n s u f f i c i e n t s h o w i n g o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s k n o w l e d g e a n d t h e e v i d e n c e ’ s

m a t e r i a l i t y

. S e e R & R

, a t 7 0

– 7 1

, 7 1 n

. 3 9

. W e a f f i r m o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e l a t t e r 8

We ag ree with Bowe that the cour t appea rs to contra dict himself in analy zing whethe r 8

Bow e wa s entitled to further pr ocee dings w ith respec t to prong two. Howeve r, this error is

inconseque ntial give n the cour t’s alterna tive, dispositi ve conc lusion reg arding materia lity

. We disag ree with Bowe that the cour t “did not dispute that the Keith Major e vidence was

‘mater ial.’” Petitioner’ s Br ief a t 51. I n the B rady universe, “ materia lity ” is a c onclusion

reg arding the quantum of potential pre judice flowing from the suppre ssed evidenc e in question.

See United States v. B ag ley , 473 U.S. 667, 674–79, 105 S. C t. 3375 (1985); cf . Cave v. Sec ’y

for

Dept. of Corr s., 11th Cir. 2011, — F.3d — , (No. 09- 15602, April 12, 2011) (slip op. at 19–20)

(explaining the sa

me in the context of Strickland prejudice ). F ootnote 39 of the R& R clear ly

11r u l i n g

.

T h e s t r e n g t h o f B o w e ’ s a r g u m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e m a t e r i a l i t y o f t h e M a j o r

T a p e s h i n g e s u p o n h i s c l a i m t h a t “ C o v e r l e y ’ s t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l w a s t h a t M r

. B o w e

w a s ‘ h i s o n l y f

i n a n c i e r ’ o f a l l t h e d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n s i n w h i c h h e ( C o v e r l e y )

e n g a g e d s i n c e 2 0 0 1

. ” S e e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s B r i e f a t 4 7 ( q u o t i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s

O r d e r d e n y i n g p e t i t i o n e r ’ s R u l e 3 3 m o t i o n ) ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d )

. T h e G o v e r n m e n t

d i s p u t e s t h a t C o v e r l e y s o t e s t i f i e d

, a s s e r t i n g a t o r a l a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t ’ s r e f

e r e n c e w a s n o t a n i n d e p e n d e n t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f C o v e r l e y ’ s t e s t i m o n y

,

b u t r a t h e r a r e p e t i t i o n o f a n a s s e r t i o n m a d e b y B o w e i n a p r i o r m o t i o n t h a t t h e

c o u r t m e r e l y a s s u m e d w a s t r u e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f i t s r u l i n g

. H a v i n g r e v i e w e d t h e

t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t

, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e G o v e r n m e n t t h a t C o v e r l e y d i d n o t t e s t i f y t h a t

B o w e w a s t h e s o l e f

i n a n c i e r f

o r a l l o f h i s d r u g o p e r a t i o n s

.

T h o u g h C o v e r l e y d e s c r i b e d B o w e a s a f i n a n c i e r o f h i s d r u g o p e r a t i o n s a n d

t e s t i f i e d t o f a c t s g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t i n g t h e n o t i o n t h a t C o v e r l e y r e l i e d o n B o w e f o r

f u n d s

, C o v e r l e y ’ s t e s t i m o n y c a n n o t b e f a i r l y c o n s t r u e d a s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e s p e c i f i c

p o i n t t h a t B o w e a d v a n c e s

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, a l t h o u g h t h e a l l e g e d c o n t e n t o f t h e

M a j o r T a p e s

— i

. e

. , t h a t C o v e r l e y d i s c u s s e d h i s d r u g f i n a n c i e r s w i t h M a

j o r a n d d i d

n o t l i s t B o w e a m o n g t h e m

— r e t a i n s s o m e p r o b a t i v e v a l u e f o r i m p e a c h m e n t

states that the cour

t believed the a lleg edly

suppressed e vidence was not mater ial.

12p u r p o s e s

, t h a t v a l u e d o e s n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f m a t e r i a l i t y u n d e r B r a d y

. A s a 9

r e s u l t

, B o w e w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s o n t h i s c l a i m

, a n d w e a f f i r m

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n t h i s f r o n t

.

2

.

F i n a l l y

, B o w e a r g u e s t h a t

, e v e n i f h e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f u n d e r t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l B r a d y m a t e r i a l i t y / p r e j u d i c e s t a n d a r d

, h e i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f u n d e r t h e

m o r e d e f e n s e

- f r i e n d l y p r e

j u d i c e s t a n d a r d a p p l i c a b l e t o c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e

G o v e r n m e n t k n e w o r s h o u l d h a v e k n o w n t h a t i t s c a s e a t t r i a l c o n t a i n e d a

f a l s e h o o d

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. A n t o n e

, 6 0 3 F

. 2 d 5 6 6

, 5 6 9 ( 5 t h C i r

. 1 9 7 9 )

. 1 0

T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s l o n g a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t c o n v i c t i o n s o b t a i n e d b y t h e

k n o w i n g u s e o f p e r

j u r e d t e s t i m o n y a r e f

u n d a m e n t a l l y u n f

a i r

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

.

A g u r s

, 4 2 7 U

. S

. 9 7

, 1 0 3

, 9 6 S

. C t

. 2 3 9 2 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; N a p u e v

. I l l i n o i s

, 3 6 0 U

. S

. 2 6 4

,

2 6 9

, 7 9 S

. C t

. 1 1 7 3 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ( “ [ A ] c o n v i c t i o n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h u s e o f f a l s e

e v i d e n c e

, k n o w n t o b e s u c h b y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e S t a t e

, m u s t f a l l u n d e r t h e

The same is true with respe ct to Bow e’s se ntencing . Thoug h the evidenc e mig ht be 9

slightly probative w ith respec t Bowe ’s leade rship enhanc ement, it does not amount to Br ady

materia lity

.

Bow e make s this arg ument solely as par t of his Rule 33 case, a

ppare ntly assuming the 1 0

rela x ed pre

judice standa

rd only applies in the Rule 33 context. Although Antone w as a Rule 33

case , the exception on which B owe r elies has its foundations in g ener al Due Proc ess Clause

jurisprudenc e and is not limited to Rul e 33 motions. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103,

112–13, 55 S. Ct . 340 (1935); Na pue v. I llinois , 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S. C t. 1173 (1959); Gig lio

v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154–55, 92 S. Ct . 763 (1972).

13F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

. ” ( c i t i n g

, i n t e r a l i a

, M o o n e y v

. H o l o h a n

, 2 9 4 U

. S

. 1 0 3

, 5 5

S

. C t

. 3 4 0 ( 1 9 3 5 ) ) )

. B e c a u s e s u c h c a s e s “ i n v o l v e a c o r r u p t i o n o f t h e t r u t h

- s e e k i n g

f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l p r o c e s s

, ” t h e C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s ’

c o n v i c t i o n s “ m u s t b e s e t a s i d e i f t h e r e i s a n y r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e f a l s e

t e s t i m o n y c o u l d h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e j u r y

. ” A g u r s

, 4 2 7 U

. S

. a t

1 0 3

– 0 4 ( d e s c r i b i n g t h e f i r s t o f t h r e e f

a c t u a l s c e n a r i o s i n w h i c h t h e r u l e o f B r a d y v

.

M a r y l a n d a p p l i e s ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t l a t e r c l a r i f i e d t h a t t h e 1 1

a p p l i c a b l e p r e

j u d i c e s t a n d a r d f

o r t h e s e “ A g u r s C a t e g o r y O n e ” c a s e s i s t h e s a m e a s

t h a t a n n o u n c e d i n C h a p m a n v

. C a l i f o r n i a

, 3 8 6 U

. S

. 1 8

, 8 7 S

. C t

. 8 2 4 ( 1 9 6 7 )

, w h e r e

p r e j u d i c e t o t h e d e f

e n d a n t i s p r e s u m e d

, u n l e s s t h e e r r o r w a s h a r m l e s s b e y o n d a

r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. B a g l e y

, 4 7 3 U

. S

. 6 6 7

, 6 7 9 n

. 9

, 1 0 5 S

. C t

.

3 3 7 5 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ( e q u a t i n g t h e “ a n y r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d ” s t a n d a r d o f A g u r s w i t h t h e

“ h a r m l e s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t ” s t a n d a r d o f C h a p m a n

, w h i c h r e q u i r e s “ t h e

b e n e f i c i a r y o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l e r r o r t o p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e

e r r o r c o m p l a i n e d o f d i d n o t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e v e r d i c t o b t a i n e d ” ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n

m a r k s o m i t t e d ) ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. A l z a t e

, 4 7 F

. 3 d 1 1 0 3

, 1 1 1 0 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 5 )

Doctrina lly , Ag urs’s sec ond and third ca teg ories of B rady case s have since been 1 1

combined. See U nited States v. Ba g ley , 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. C t. 3375 (1985); see also

Ky les v. Whit ley , 514 U.S. 419, 433, 115 S. C t. 1555 (1995) (de scribing the ef fec t of Ba g ley

on

Ag urs and noting the continuing distinction for claims wher e the pr osecution’s c ase c ontained

false te stimony

of which the prosec ution should have known).

14( a n a l y z i n g t h e s a m e a n d d u b b i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e p r e j u d i c e s t a n d a r d t h e

“ N a p u e / G i g l i o m a t e r i a l i t y s t a n d a r d ” )

.

B o w e a r g u e s t h a t t h e M a j o r T a p e s s h o w t h e G o v e r n m e n t k n e w o r s h o u l d

h a v e k n o w n i t w a s p r e s e n t i n g f a l s e t e s t i m o n y w h e n C o v e r l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t B o w e

w a s h i s s o l e f

i n a n c i e r

. W e d i s a g r e e

.

F o r t h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e

, t h e r e w a s n o f a l s e h o o d c o n t a i n e d i n t h e

G o v e r n m e n t ’ s c a s e

. T h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t r e f l e c t t h a t C o v e r l e y a c t u a l l y t e s t i f i e d

t h a t B o w e w a s h i s s o l e f i n a n c i e r

. A s a r e s u l t

, t h e f a c t s d o n o t p l a c e B o w e ’ s c a s e

w i t h i n A g u r s ’ s f

i r s t c a t e g o r y

, a n d h e r e t a i n s t h e b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g a r e a s o n a b l e

p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e o u t c o m e o f h i s t r i a l w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n t h a d t h e M a

j o r

T a p e s b e e n d i s c l o s e d

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y a s s u m i n g f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f i t s 1 2

R u l e 3 3 r u l i n g t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n a f a l s e h o o d o f w h i c h G o v e r n m e n t s h o u l d h a v e

k n o w n

— a n a s s u m p t i o n t h a t w o u l d h a v e t r i g g e r e d t h e A g u r s C a t e g o r y O n e

e x c e p t i o n

. H o w e v e r

, i t s r u l i n g ( i n b o t h t h e R u l e 3 3 o r d e r a n d i t s a d o p t i o n o f t h e

m a g i s t r a t e j u d g e ’ s R & R ) t h a t t h e r e w a s n o r e a s o n a b l e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e

s u p p r e s s e d e v i d e n c e w o u l d h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e j u r y ’ s j u d g m e n t c u r e d a n y d e f e c t i n

i t s a p p r o a c h

.

Her e, of c ourse, we addre ss Bowe ’s burde n under the less onerous leg al re g ime of his 1 2

§ 2255 Br ady

claim. Without qualify ing f or the Ag urs Categ ory

One e x ception as a

pplied to

Rule 33 claims in Antone, B owe be ars a n even g rea ter burde n on his moti on for a new tria l. See

note 6, supra.

15I V

.

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s

, w e a f f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f r e l i e f o n a l l c l a i m s

.

A F F I R M E D

.

16