FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J UNE 4, 2008 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 07- 1258 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00013 CR-W LS -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us MAR VIN KIRK

JON ES , SH AN IK A N AT AS HAJON ES , D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeals fr om

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

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 4, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, P RY O R and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Br ie fl y state d, D ef

en dants in the c ri m ina l l awappe al r ai se the se iss ue s: (1 ) W as the dis tr ic t c ourt r equir ed , a s am atte r of law , to ac qui t a ll thr ee of the c o- de fe ndants w he n it a cquitte d on e co -d ef

en dant o f the a l l e g e dc o n s p i r a c y?2

(2 ) W as the e vid en ce ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t D ef en dant S hanik a Jone s’ s c onvi ct ion ? (3 ) Is the f

ai lur e of the c ourt r ep orte r to transc ri be r ec or de d te le phon e conversations a substantial and s ignificant om issio n from the trial re co rd ? (4) D id the dist rict court com m it plain error when it adm itted ex tr ins ic f

ac t e vid en ce f

or the j ur y ’ s c onsi de ratio n ine va luatin g De fendants’ alleged m ens rea? (5) D id the dist rict court er r when it failed to identify and address an al l eg edco n fl i ct o f i n t er es ti n v o l v i n g De fe n d an tSh an i k a J o n es ’s co unse l? W e answe r the questions , “ No. ” T he f if th que sti on, in ef

fe ct , se em s to c ont ai n ac ha lle nge to the c onvi ct ion ba se d onac la im

of ine ff ec tiv en es s of

c ouns el w hic h w e de cl ine to de ci de on dir ec t a ppe al
. W e not e that ne ith er S hanik a Jone s no r he r co unse l e ve r obj ec te d to
or m ad e any

m oti on o r did

anythi ng t o dr awthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s atte nti on t o th e poss ibilityof a c onflict of interest. T he m atter w as apparently drawn to the dis trict
co urt’ s atte nti on a ft er

the ve rd ic t and a ft er

the tr ia l by

ac om m uni catio n to the j udge f ro m the c o- de fe ndant. A t se nte nc ing , the j udge a ske d so m e que sti ons ab out
a poss ibl e co nf

lic t. Ms
. Jon es ’ s law y er

gave an e xpl an at ionf

or w hy she f el t sh e had no conflicted in terests. The district court then stated th at there did not appear to be a conflict and we nt forward. No one has argued that the purported conflict3

im pacted on couns el’ s work at sentencing. Nor w as a m otion m ade to the district
co ur t (b efo re t hi s ap pe al ) to set asi de th e co nv ic ti on on acco un t o f a co nf li ct . On thi s r ec or d, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it pla in e rr or

or e ve n a buse it s dis cr et ion
. Co nsi de ri ng the ne ed f or oth er e vid en ce , w e le av e the iss ue of in effe ct iv en es s at tri al to be po ss ib ly deci de d b y m ean s o f co ll at eral rev ie w. Today ’ s decision is intended to be w ithou t prej udice to a later a ction for collateral
rev ie w. AFFIRMED.