F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT February15 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble Will is B. Hunt, Jr., United States Senior District J udg e for the Northe rn * District of Ge org ia, sitting by desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 04- 1517 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 21 00 0- CR-AJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee ve rs us VI VI ANCIA RRO CHI , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (F eb ru ar y 15 , 200 6) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BARKETT, Circ ui t J ud ge , andHUNT , * District Judge.An EAD c ard is a w ork per mit, authoriz ing a

n alien to obtain employ

ment leg ally

in the 1 United States. EAD c ards c ontain identifying inf ormation, such as the holder’s photograph, fing erpr int, name, date of birth and Alien Numbe r and ma y be used to obtain other

forms of identification, includinga Social Secur ity car d and drive r’s lice nse. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)( 1)(B ). Individuals leg ally

prese nt in the United States and in the proc ess of be cominga leg al re sident are elig ible for EA D ca

rds, while those illeg ally

in the U.S are not. 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12. 2 PE R CU RIA M: V ivi anCi ar

ro ch i a ppe al s he r co nvi ct ion s f

or c onsp ir ing to poss es s, obt ai n an d tr an sf

er , thr oughf

ra ud and o the r m eans, “ E m plo ym en t Auth or iz at ion Docum ents” (“ EA D c ards”) issued by the Im m igration and Naturalization Service 1 (“ IN S” ) in v iol at ionof

18 U . S. C. § 37 1, and f

or kno w ing ly

pos se ssi ng, obt ai nin g an d tr an sf

er ri ng E A D c ar ds i n vi olatio n of 18 U . S. C. §§ 1 546( a) and 1 028( a) (2 ) an d 2. O n a

ppe al , Ci ar

ro ch i arg ue s th at

the e vid en ce pr oduc ed

a t tri al is ins uf fi ci en t t o su sta in h er

c onvi ct ionf

or c onsp ir ac y

and i m m igr at ionf

ra ud and th atth e d is tri ctco ur t ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de nyin g h er m ot io n fo r ne w tri al . Sp ec if ic al ly , Ci ar

ro ch i su bm its that sh e is e nti tle d to ane wtr ia l be ca use the gove rn m en t de lib er at el y

de porte d w itn es se s th at

she c ont en ds w oul d have providedexculpatory

evidence and that certa in evidence was im properly adm itted attri al . W e co ns id er ea ch arg um en t i n t urn.3 Sufficie ncy

of the E vidence Su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce i s an is su e th atwe rev ie w de nov o to d et er m ine whether “ a re asonable jury , view ing th e evidence and all re asonable inferences therefr om in the ligh t m ost favorable to the gov ernm ent could findthe defendant[] gui lty a s c harg ed

be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 339 F. 3d 1 295, 129 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 3) (i nte rn al quo ta tio ns o m itt ed ). Appl y ing thi s standard to the circum stances of this case, we find the evidence presented at trial m or e than su ff

ic ie nt t o su

ppor t C iarr oc hi’ s c onvi ct ion s. Fi rs t, an a ge nt f

ro m the Bure auof

I m m igr at ionand C ust om s E nf or ce m en t (“ IC E ”) te sti fi ed

that C iarr oc hi, a ft er

be co m ing atarg et

of the inv es tig at ion thr oughint er

vie w s of il le ga l a lie ns i n po sse ssi on o f fr au dul en t E A D c ar ds, cooperated at fir st with the investig ation and arrest of her co-conspirators, Miguel Ra ggi o, the m idd le m anw ho t ook the a lie ns t o th e IN S, and I sidro G ue rr er o, the IN S em ploy ee who iss ued the fraudulent EA D c ards. He r assistance included m ak ing c ontro lle d c al ls t o R ag gio , inf orm ing him

that sh e ha d agr oup of

pe opl e w ho w an te d to pur ch as e fa lse E A D c ar ds f ro m G ue rr er o a t the I N S. L at er , the ag en t w itn es se d C iarr oc hi m ee t w ithRa ggi o and p ro vid e him w ithc as h and the pe rs ona l i nf

orm at ionof

the pur ch as er s. A ft er

c oll ec tin g and t

ur nin g ov er the m oney and inform ation to Raggio , C iarrochi w ouldthen instruct th e alienPart of the sc he me re qu ir e d a lie ns to r e lin qu ish the ir pa ssp or ts t o Ci arr oc hi o r R a g g io i n 2 order to rec eive a

fra udulent entry

stamp on their passports. An e ntry stamp verifie s an alien’ s date of entry into the United States and that stamp ca n only be issued by

a law e nforc ement office r. Ciarroc hi’s passport also conta ined a f raudule nt entry

stamp. 4 cu sto m er s w he re to m ee t R ag gio so the y c oul d be take n to the I N S of fi ce to obt ai n th e fraud ul en t EAD card s fr om Guerrero . Ci ar ro ch i a lso pr ovi de d I CE a ge nts w ithade ta ile d li st o f ove r se ve nty al ie ns who m

sh e p ers on al ly recru it edan d a rran ge d fo r th e p ur ch as e o f fal se EAD cards. T his list turned out to be inaccurate , how ever, because Ciar rochi later 2 adm itt ed that sh e ac tua lly

handl ed ove r tw o hundr ed

a lie ns. In addition to the agent’ s testim ony , R aggio testified agains t Ciarr ochi at tr ia l, ide nti fy ing he r as ake y part ic ipant i n th e sc he m e. A ft er a dm itt ing to his r ole as the m iddlem an who escorted the c ustom ers to the IN S w here Guerrer o provid ed the E A D c ar ds, Ra ggi o id en tif ie d C iarr oc hi a s th e pe rs on who “ co lle ct ed ” the people for the schem e, coordinated the process out of her hom e, inform ed pur ch as er s of

and c oll ec te d th e hig h f

ee s inc as h, hande d ou t the ne ce ssary f orm s, ac ce pte d and l at er

r et ur ne d c ust om er ’ s pa ssp orts w ithf ra udul en t e ntr

y stam ps, and ev en tua lly

ins tr uc te d c ust om er s w he re to m ee t e ith er Ra ggi o or

he rs el f in o rd er

to re ce ive the f

al se E A D c ar ds. H e furthe r te sti fi ed that C iarr oc hi a lw ay s r ec ei ve d a share of the pr oc ee ds f

or he r part ic ipatio n and ty

pic al ly ide nti fi ed

he rs el f to5

c u s t o mer s a s R a g g i o ’s s e c r e t a ry. Fi na lly , se ve ra l a lie n w itn es se s w ho p ur ch as ed f ra udul en t E A D c ar ds te sti fi ed about Ci ar ro ch i’ s r ole in the sc he m e. A ll of the se w itn es se s m et

w ith Ciarr ochi in her hom e and testified that she quot ed the cost of the service, acce pted their cash paym ents, coordinated the m eeting place w here the c ustom ers w oul d th enr ec ei ve the f

al se E A D c ar ds, f

ill ed out im m igr at ionf

orm s and ap pli catio ns, and r et

ur ne d e ntr y f orm s and p as spor

ts b ac k to c ust om er s be ar ing a fr au dul en t e ntr

y stam p. O ne w itn es s te sti fi ed

that up on r ec ei vin g he r paym en t f or the E A D c ar d, Ci ar

ro ch i st at ed

that this m one y

w as f or the doc tor , r ef

er ri ng t o C i a rr o c h i ’s p r e g n a n c y. In l i g h to f t h i s o v erwh el m i n g ev i d en ce ag ai n s th er , we fi n dCi arro ch i ’s suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce c la im

w ith out m er it.
Motion for N ewTr ial Ci ar ro ch i arg ue s th at

she sho uld

have be engr an te d ane wtr ia l be ca use ne ith er the te sti m ony

of r eb utt al w itn es s, G ue tte G ill es , nor he r pa ssp ort or

the li st of imm ig ran ts th atsh e co m pi le d fo r th e INS s ho ul d h av e b een ad m it te d a t t ria l. Sh e al so c ont en ds tha t the gov er nm en t i m pr ope rl y de porte d c er

ta in w itn es se s w ho
w oul d have te sti fi ed

in he r favor , the re by

e nti tli ng h er

to a ne wtr ia l.6

W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. United States v. Pendergra ft, 297 F.3d 119 8, 1204 (11th Cir. 2002 ). E videnti ary an d othe r non- co nst itu tio na l e rr or s, how ev er , are not gr ound s f

or r ev er sa l a

bse nt a reasonable likelihoo d that the defendant’ s subs tantial rights were affe cted. United St at es v. Range , 94 F . 3d 6 14, 620 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . Whe re an e rr or ha d no subs tanti al inf

lue nc e on the out co m e, and s uf fi ci en t e vid en ce una ff

ec te d by e rr or supp orts the ve rd ic t, ane wtr ia l i s no t w ar rante d. U nit ed

S ta te s v. H awkin s, 905 F. 2d 14 89, 1493 (11t h Cir. 1990 ). T he adm issio n of testim ony not ob j ected to at tr ia l i s r ev ie w ed

onl y f or pla in e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ill if

or d, 764 F . 2d 1 493, 1502 (11th Cir. 1985). Guette G illes, an INS exam iner called by the Governm ent as a re buttal witness, te stified about INS proce dures concerning perm anent residency ap pl ic at io ns du rin g t he ti m e th atCia rro ch i fi rs t en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i n 1 99 0. Ci ar ro ch i su bm its it w as e rr or

to adm it thi s te sti m ony

be ca use G ill es did

not be co m e ane xam ine r unt il one m onth a ft er Ci ar ro ch i arr ive d. H ow ev er , in re spon se to thi s ob

j ec tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt i nstru ct ed the j ur y that G ill es did

not ha ve pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of C ia rro ch i’s ca se an d was on ly test ifyin g abo ut INS pr oc ed ur es dur ing late 199 0. H av ing r ev ie w ed the r ec or d and c onsi de re d bo th the co nte xt o f the te sti m ony

and the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s li m iti ng i nstru ct ion , w e fi nd n o7

reversible er

ror. L ike w ise , a ft er

apla in e rr or

r ev ie w , w e fi nd n o r ev er sib le e rr or in the adm issio n of Ciarr ochi’ s passpo rt and list of alien recr uits. Ciarr ochi argues that the se doc um en ts are ina dm iss ibl e pur suant t o he r le tte r of im m uni ty pr ovi de d by the gov er nm en t duri ng h er

int er vie ww ithI N S ag en ts. H ow ev er , that l ette r of im m uni ty w as c ondi tio ne d up on C iarr oc hi p ro vid ing tr uth fu l i nf orm at ionand i t i s undi sput ed

that sh e lie d a

bout the num be r of a lie ns s he r ec ru ite d to pur ch as e fr au dul en t E A D c ar ds. C onse que ntl y , the a dm iss ionof thi s e vid en ce did

not violate the imm

unityletter. Fi na lly , w e fi nd n o m er it in C iarr oc hi’ s c ont en tio n th at the G ove rn m en t m al ic io us ly dep or te d wi tn es se s wh o wo ul d h av e p ro vi de d e xc ul pa to ry ev id en ce. Ac cording to h er, these witnesses w ouldhave testified that Raggio charged $6, 500. 00 p er

f al se E A D c ar d, w hic h w oul d pr ove that C iarr oc hi d id n ot e ar n any m one y f ro m the se tr an sa ct ion s. T his f ac t, arg ue s C iarr oc hi, e sta bli she s th at

she did no t have knowledge of the illegal schem e. W e find, how ever, that such testim ony would be cum

ulative as at least three other witnesses testified that Ra ggi o c harg ed

$6, 500. 00 f

or the ir E A D c ar ds.

AF FIRMED