FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13645 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 9 - 0 8 1 2 5 - C R - DT KH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G A R L A N D H O G A N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 18, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ju ry c o n v ic te d G a r la n d H o g a n o f m a il f r a u d , c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it m a il2

f r a u d , c o n s p ir a c y to la u n d e rp r o c e e d s o f ille g a l a c tiv itie s , a n d e n g a g in g in m on et ary tra nsac t i on s w i th m ai l and w i re fr aud p roce eds of aval ue great erthan $1 0, 00 0. W e a ff

i rm ed hi s c on vi ct i on s. U ni t ed S t at es v. A rr oya, N o. 02 -103 68 , at 14–16, 53 ( 11th C i r . J un. 24, 2004) , va c a t e d i n l i ghtof B ooke rs ub nom . , H oga n v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 126 S . C t . 320 ( 2005) , r e i ns t a t e d, N o. 02- 10368, a t3 ( 11th C i r . J a n. 5 , 2 0 0 7 ) . B e f or e ourde c i s i on i s s ue d, how e ve r , H oga n f i l e d tw o s uc c e s s i ve m ot i ons for anew tri al , ea ch w i th a com pani on m ot i on t o app oi ntcoun se l . T he di stri ct c our tde ni e d the f

i r s tne w tr i a l m ot i on be c a us e i tbe l i e ve d tha ti tdi d notha ve ju r is d ic tio n to e n te r ta in th e m o tio n w h ile H o g a n ’s d ir e c t ap p e a l w a s s till p e n d in g . T he courtal so deni ed the m ot i on t o app oi ntcoun se l si nce the new tri al m ot i on w as no l on ger l i ve. H og an appeal ed. W e hel d i n thatse cond appeal the “ di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tdet erm i ned t hati tl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o ent ert ai n H og an’ s m ot i on [f or a ne w tr i a l ] be c a us e hi s di r e c tappe a l w a s pe ndi ng. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H oga n, N o. 04- 12875, a t3 ( 11th C i r . M a y 17, 2006) . W e va c a t e d the c our t ’ s or de ra nd r e m a nde d f orthe c our tt o e xe r c i s e i t s j ur i s di c t i on “ by e i the rgr a nt i ng orde ny i ng the m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l , a s the l a w a nd f a c t s di c t a t e . ” I d. O n J une 9, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d both ne w tr i a l m ot i ons . O n J une3

14, 2006, H oga n r e ne w e d hi s m ot i ons f orthe appoi ntm e ntof

c ouns e l . O n J une 19, 20 06 , H og an fi l ed a not i ce of appeal fr om : “ the O R D E R O N R E M A N D ent er ed b y th e D istrict C o u rt an d filed o n Ju n e 9 , 2 0 0 6 . T h is F in al O rd erd en ied H o g an ’s pro se m ot i on s f

or new tri al [D E 22 22 and D E 22 42 ] . ” T he no t i ce of appeal att ac hed t he court ’ s orderdenyi ng hi s new tri al m ot i on s. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the r e ne w e d m ot i ons t o appoi ntc ouns e l on O c t obe r21, 2006. I. H oga n f i r s tc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s i ni t i a l a nd r e n e w e d m o tio n s to ap p o in t c o u n s e l. W e d o n o t h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rth is c ont e nt i on. A s to th e f

ir s t s e t o f ap p o in tm e n t m o tio n s , F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r oc e dur e 3( c ) ( 1) ( B ) pr ovi de s tha ta “ not i c e of appe a l m us t. . . de s i gna t e the ju d g m e n t, o r d e r , o rp a r t th e r e o f b e in g ap p e a le d .” T h e ap p e lla n t’s f a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith R u le 3 is “f

a ta l to a n ap p e a l.” S m ith v . B a rry , 5 0 2 U .S . 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 67 8, 68 2 (19 92 ). I n thi s c a s e , H oga n’ s not i c e of appe a l m e nt i one d onl y tha the w a s appe a l i ng th e d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n s f

o ra n e w tr ia l. I t s a id n o th in g a b o u t th e d e n ia l o f h is i ni t i a l m ot i ons f

orthe appoi ntm e ntof

c ouns e l . H oga n’ s br i e f , w hi c h di d m e nt i on the appo i nt m entof coun se l i ss ue, m ay be construed as a not i ce of appeal as l on g as4

it w a s f ile d w ith in th e ap p r o p r ia te tim e lim its . I d . a t 2 4 8

– 4 9 , 1 1 2 S . C t. a t 6 8 2 . B utthe br i e f

w a s notf

i l e d w i thi n t e n da y s of

e ntry of the c our t ’ s or de r . S e e F e d. R . A pp. P . 4( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( “ I n ac r i m i na l c a s e , a de f e nda nt ’ s not i c e of

appe a l m us tbe f i l e d i n the di s tr i c tc our tw i thi n 10 da y s a f t e r. . . the e ntry of

e i the rthe j udgm e ntor the order bei ng appeal ed. ”) . T hu s, i tca nn otse rve a s t i m el y not i ce thatH og an i n t en d ed t o ap p eal th e co u rt ’ s d eci si o n o n th e fi rstseto f ap p o i n tm en tm o t i o n s. H og an’ s not i ce of appeal i s def i ci entas t o the court ’ s orderon the re new ed appoi ntm e ntm ot i on a s w e l l . T he not i c e of appe a l w a s f

i l e d on J une 19, 2006 a nd di d n otm ent i on of the court ’ s orderdenyi ng the re new ed m ot i on , w hi ch w as ent er ed m on ths l at eron O ct ob er21 , 20 06 . N o n ew no t i ce of appeal w as fi l ed there af t er . H og an’ s bri ef

al so ca nn otbe construed as hi s not i ce t o app ea l fr om the order denyi ng the re new ed m ot i on for app oi nt m entof coun se l because the bri ef w as fi l ed on O ct ob er19 , 20 06 , tw o d ay s bef ore thatorder w as ent er ed. “ R ul e 3(c ) r equi re s th a t a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l d e s ig n a te a n e x is te n t ju d g m e n t o ro r d e r , n o t o n e th a t is m er el y e xp ec t ed or thati s, or shou l d b e, w i thi n the appel l ant ’ s c on t em pl at i on w hen th e n o t i ce o f ap p eal i s fi l ed . ” B o g l e v . O ran g e C o u n ty B d . o f C o u n ty C o m m ’ rs, 1 6 2 F .3 d 6 5 3 , 6 6 1 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). A t th e tim e H o g an filed h is b rief , th e c o u rt’s ru lin g o n th e r e n e w e d m o tio n f o rc o u n s e l w a s e x p e c te d , b u t n o t y e t e x is te n t.Hog an attaches four exhibi ts to his brief that he says arerelevant to his contention that 1 th eg o v e r nment s u p p re s s e d e v ide n c ean d

p re s e nte d

kn o w ing ly

f als ete s timo ny

at t rial. We cannot c onsider this evidenc e for the first time on appe al. Fe d. R. App. P. 10(a) (therec ord on appeal is li mited to the orig inal paper s and exhibit s “filed in the district cour t,” the tra nscript of proc e e ding s, and

“ a c e rtif ie d c op y of thedo c ke t entrie s p repa

re d b y thedis tric t c lerk” ); se ealso Ross v. Kemp, 785 F.2d 1467, 1474–75 (11th Cir. 1986) ( “We haveref used to supplement the rec ord when a par

ty has filed supplemental material without requestingleaveof this court or ha s appende d material to an appellatebrief without fili nga motion to supplement.” ). 5 I f H oga n w a nt e d t o appe a l the or de rde ny i ng hi s r e ne w e d m ot i on f orthe appo i nt m entof coun se l , he needed t o fi l e ase para t e not i ce of appeal af t erthat o r d e rw a s e n te r e d . B e c a u s e h e d id n ’t, w e la c k ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e o r d e rh e r e . W e di s m i s s the pa r tof

hi s appe a l s e e ki ng r e vi e w of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de r s on th e ap p o i n tm en to f co u n sel m o t i o n s. II. H oga n a l s o appe a l s the de ni a l of hi s ne w tr i a l m ot i ons . H e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m be c a us e the gove rnm e nt s u p p r e s s e d e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e r e g a r d in g w itn e s s e s c a lle d a g a in s t h im a t tr ia l, in v io la tio n o f

B r a d y v . M a ry la n d , 3 7 3 U .S . 8 3 , 8 3 S . C t. 1 1 9 4 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , a n d k n o w in g ly p r e s e n te d f

a ls e te s tim o n y , in v io la tio n o f N ap u e v . I llin o is , 3 6 0 U .S . 2 6 4 , 7 9 S . C t. 11 73 (195 9), and G i gl i o v . U ni t ed S t at es , 40 5 U . S . 15 0, 92 S . C t . 76 3 (19 72 ). 1 W e r evi ew the deni al of a new tri al m ot i on base d o n a B ra dy vi ol at i on for a n abuse of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. K er se y, 13 0 F . 3d 14 63 , 14 65 (11t h C i r. 1997) . I n or de rt o obt a i n a ne w tr i a l ba s e d on a n a s s e r t e d B r a dy vi ol a t i on, the6

d e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w th a t: ( 1 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t p o s s e s s e d e v id e n c e f a v o r ab le to th e d e f

e n d a n t; ( 2 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t d o e s n o t p o s s e s s th e e v id e n c e a n d c o u ld n o t o b ta in the e vi de nc e w i th a ny r e a s onabl e di l i ge nc e ; ( 3) the pr os e c ut i on supp re ss ed the fa vo rabl e e vi dence; and (4) had t he evi dence been di s c l os e d t o the de f

e nda nt , the r e i s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tthe o u tc o m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. U ni t ed S t at es v. V al l ej o, 29 7 F . 3d 11 54 , 11 64 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). “ F ai l ure t o m ee t a ny one of

the s e e l e m e nt s w i l l de f e a ta m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t arre tt , 55 F . 3d 15 25 , 15 54 (11t h C i r. 19 95 ). H og an ar gu es thatthe go vernm entw i thh el d evi dence s ug gest i ng that m e m be r s of

the pr os e c ut i on t e a m be l i e ve d tha tothe ra tt orne y s , N or m a n M a l i ns ki a n d N o r m a n T ap lin , w h o h a d n o t b e e n n a m e d in th e in d ic tm e n t, w e r e in v o lv e d in the f r a udul e ntvi a t i c a l s e tt l e m e nts c he m e , a nd tha t , ha d the j ury l e a rne d tha tthe prosec ut i on bel i eved thatothers w er e i nv ol ved, the bl am e w ou l d h ave been shi ft ed a w a y f r om H oga n. W e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc our ttha tH oga n ha s f a i l e d t o m a ke o u ta Br a d y c l a i m. F orone thi ng, the m e nt a l i m pr e s s i ons of the gove rnm e nt ’ s c ouns e l e nj oy

“ al m ostabsol ut e i m m un i ty, ” a nd have t o b e di sc l osed t o the defendanton l y w here

“ e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s ” e xi s t . S e e W i l l i a m s on v. M oor e , 221 F . 3d 1177, 11 82 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t i ng the cr i m e- fr aud except i on as an extra ordi nary e xa m pl e of

w he n the w or k- pr oduc tpr i vi l e ge m a y be pi e r c e d) . H oga n ha s not7

pers uaded u s thatsuch extra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s a re pres enthere . F ora nothe rthi ng, e vi de nc e tha tM a l i ns ki a nd T apl i n w e r e i nvol ve d i n the fr audu l entsc hem e w as no tun kn ow n t o H og an. D on nel l John son, w ho w orked w i th H og an, t es t i fi ed attri al thattho se tw o att orneys part i ci pat ed i n F i nanci al F eder at ed’ s vi at i ca l sc hem e. A n d f in a lly , e v e n if

th e e v id e n c e h a d b e e n w ith h e ld a n d w a s u n k n o w n to H og an, there i s nota r ea sonabl e probabi l i ty thatthe ou t com e w ou l d h ave been di ff er enthad t he evi dence been di sc l osed. T he evi dence i ntrodu ce d attri al show ed tha tH oga n w a s e xt e ns i ve l y i nvol ve d i n the s c he m e . T he f ol l ow i ng t e s t i m ony c o n s titu te d in d e p e n d e n t e v id e n c e o f H o g a n ’s k n o w le d g e o f th e f r a u d a n d in te n t to part i ci pat e i n the fr audu l entvi at i ca l sc hem e: (1) H og an’ s a ss i st ant s t es t i fi ed that th ey n ev er saw th e u n d erl yi n g p o l i ci es o r m ed i cal reco rd s b ack i n g th e i n v estm en t s; (2) H og an’ s a ss i st antt es t i fi ed thatH og an t ol d h i m thathe had seen the i nsurance po l i ci es un derl yi ng the i nv es tm ent s, som ethi ng H og an l at eradm i tt ed w as a l i e; ( 3 ) o n e o f

th e in v e s to r s te s tif

ie d th a t H o g a n a d v is e d h im th a t h e h a d p e r s o n a lly r e vi e w e d the pol i c i e s unde r l y i ng the i nve s tm e nt , the pol i c i e s w e r e c urr e nt , a nd the peri od for c on t es t at i on had exp i re d; (4) the i nsurance a gent s, w ho sol d v i at i ca l se tt l em ent s on b ehal f of F i nanci al F eder at ed, t es t i fi ed thatH og an as sure d them that the i nv es tm ent s w er e bac ked b y l i fe i nsurance po l i ci es , and t hatH og an w as8

i nvol ve d i n a c qui r i ng thos e pol i c i e s ; ( 5) H oga n a dm i tt e d tha the l i e d t o the gr a nd j ury a nd i nve s t or s w he n he s t a t e d tha the ha d s e e n the i ns ur a nc e pol i c i e s ; ( 6) H oga n a dm i tt e d tha thi s s t a t e m e nt s t o i nve s t or s , tha the ha d s upe r vi s e d the p resen t at i o n o f cl ai m s t o i n su ran ce co m p an i es an d d i sb u rsed i n su ran ce m atu ri t i es, w e r e f a ls e ; a n d ( 7 ) H o g a n a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h e m is r e p r e s e n te d h is r o le to i n v est o rs.

“ A di ff er entand m ore defe nse- fr i endl y s t andard of m at er i al i ty app l i es w hen the pr os e c ut orknow i ngl y us e d pe r j ur e d t e s t i m ony , ” a s oppos e d t o w he n the prosec ut or supp re ss ed fa vo rabl e e vi dence i n v i ol at i on of the B ra dy rul e. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. A l z a t e , 47 F . 3d 1103, 1110 ( 11th C i r . 1995) . A de f e nda ntm a y obt a i n a ne w tr i a l on the ba s i s of the gove rnm e nt ’ s us e of f a l s e t e s t i m ony i n vi ol a t i on of G i g l i o i f h e can sh o w th at(1 ) th e p ro secu t o r k n o w i n g l y u sed p erj u red t est i m o n y, orf a i l e d t o c orr e c tw ha the s ubs e que nt l y l e a rne d w a s f a l s e t e s t i m ony ; a nd ( 2) the f a l s e hood w a s m a t e r i a l . I d. T he f a l s e hood i s de e m e d t o be m a t e r i a l “ i f the r e i s a ny r e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood tha tthe f a l s e t e s t i m ony c oul d ha ve a f f e c t e d the j udgm e ntof the j ury. ” I d. (quo t at i on s a nd ci t at i on om i tt ed; em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). H o g a n c o n te n d s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t k n e w th a t tw o o f its w itn e s s e s f

a ls e ly t e s t i f i e d. H e c l a i m s tha tgove rnm e ntkne w tha the w a s nota n “ i ns i de r ” i n the fr audu l entsc hem e, as IR S A gentK l aus H urm e t es t i fi ed, and t hatW i l l i am P age,9

w ho ow ned h i s ow n v i at i ca l se tt l em entbu si ness and t es t i fi ed thatF i nanci al F eder at ed’ s pra ct i ce s w er e i nadequ at e, w as hi m se l f e ng aged i n a fr audu l entvi at i ca l sc hem e. H oga n ha s notpr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d r e a s on to k n o w th a t e ith e rw itn e s s ’ te s tim o n y w a s f a ls e . A g e n t H u r m e e x p r e s s e d h is o p i n i o n th atH o g an w as an i n si d er aft er rev i ew i n g th e d o cu m en t s sen tt o i n v est o rs, a l l of w hi c h H oga n ha d s i gne d c e r t i f y i ng tha te ve ry thi ng r e f l e c t e d i n the d o c u m e n ts w a s c o rr e c t, w h e n it c le a r ly w a s n ’t. T h is w a s a s u f f ic ie n t b a s is to s uppor tH ur m e ’ s opi ni on, e ve n i f the r e w a s othe re vi de nc e c ontr a di c t i ng i t . A s f or P a ge , the e vi de nc e s how s tha tthe gove rnm e ntdi d notl e a rn of the i nve s t i ga t i on a g a in s t h im u n til a f

te rH o g a n ’s tr ia l. T h u s , it c o u ld n o t h a v e k n o w n th a t h is t e s t i m ony w a s t a i nt e d by hi s ow n f r a ud i nve s t i ga t i on. I n a n y e v e n t, th e e v id e n c e p r o v in g H o g a n ’s f r a u d u le n t c o n d u c t a n d in te n t, w hi ch w e have al re ady des cr i bed, w as ov erw hel m i ng . H og an has notshow n that th e al l eg ed l y fal se t est i m o n y p resen t ed b y th e g o v ern m en tw as m at eri al

— th ati s, tha tthe r e w a s a r e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood the f a l s e t e s t i m ony c oul d ha ve a f f e c t e d the ju ry v e r d ic t. III. H oga n’ s f

i na l c ont e nt i on on appe a l i s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n r e f us i ng10

to h o ld an ev id en ti ar y h ea rin g o n h is n ew trial m o ti o n . W e r ev iew th e c o u rt’s e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng de c i s i on f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M as se y, 89 F . 3d 14 33 , 14 43 (11t h C i r. 19 96 ). W e f i nd none he r e . M os tof

the a l l e ga t i ons i n H oga n’ s m ot i ons w oul d not s u p p o r t a n e w tr ia l, e v e n if th e y w e r e s u p p o r te d b y e v id e n c e . F o rth o s e th a t w o u ld h a v e , it is e n o u g h th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, h a v in g s a t th r o u g h th e tr ia l a n d b e in g w e ll a c qua i nt e d w i th the f

a c t s of the c a s e , r e

j e c t e d the m ba s e d on the e vi de nc e a nd af fi davi t s a tt ac hed t o the new tri al m ot i on s a nd the go vernm ent ’ s r es po nse. S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c hl e i , 122 F . 3d 944, 994 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( “ I n de t e r m i ni ng w h e th e ra m o tio n f

o ra n e w tr ia l b a s e d o n n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e w a s p r o p e r ly de ni e d, w e a r e pe r s ua de d tha tthe a c um e n ga i ne d by a tr i a l j udge ove rthe c our s e of th e p r o c e e d in g s m a k e s h e rw e ll q u a lif ie d to ru le o n th e b a s is o f a f f id a v its w ith o u t a hear i ng . ” ( qu ot at i on and al t er at i on om i tt ed)) . A PPEA L D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D A FFI R M ED I N PA R T.