FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 8, 2010 J OHN L EY ACTI NG CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 12 60 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 20 27 2- CR-P AS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUAN CARLOS ELSO, a.k .a. J.C. El so , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 8, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:In Uni te d Sta tes v. El so , 42 2 F .3d13 05 (11 Cir . 20 05 ), we affi rm edJu an th Carl os Els o’s co nv ic ti on s an d t he sen te nc es he rece iv edforco ns pi racy to c omm it , an d fo r co m

m it ti ng , m on ey

lau nd eri ng . Els o t he reaf te r m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt, 1

The Elso panel de scribed the charg es and the fac ts on which they wer e base d thusly : 1 J uan Carlos Elso appe als his conviction and sente nce f or money laundering a

nd conspirac y , pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)( 1)(B )(i) a nd (ii), and § 1956( h). A jury convicted Elso, an attorne y , of eng ag ing in a transac tion involvi ngdrugproce eds knowingthat the transac tion was designed in whole or in part to conc eal or

disguise the nature , location, source , owner ship, or control of the mone y , as we ll as conspiringto do so. He wa s also convicted of conspiringto eng ag e in a f inancial tra

nsaction involving dr

ugproce eds to avoid a f

eder al transac tion reportingrequire ment. Elso was sentenc ed to 121 months' imprisonment. At trial, the g overnme nt presente d testimony that Elso had bec ome frie nds with Andy and Rudy Diaz, brothers who w ere importing c ocaine . Duringtheir friendship, which beg an in 1994, Elso repre sented Rudy

in a drug case in which cha

rg es we re dropped in 2001. Andy Diaz testified that he pa id Elso $50,000 for his leg al servic es at that time, and pa id Elso's investig ator $7000, all in cash. Elso's c onvictions under § 1956(a)(1) (B )(i) F N2 and § 1956( h) we re ba sed on the e vents of Nove mber 15, 2001, whe n Elso retrieve d $266,800 in drugmoney from Andy

Diaz's home
. Acc ordingto testimony

prese nted at trial, Andy

Diaz arrive d at Elso' s office that day afte r having delivere d almost $500,000 in drug pr ocee ds to an underc over a g ent posingas a Colombian courie r, and c laimed he wa s beingfollowed by law enf orce ment ag ents. He e x presse d conce rn that law enf

orce ment ag ents would discover and seize more dr

ugmoney that was hidden in a floor saf e at his home. Elso told Andy he would take car e of the situation. After movingAndy' s truck in an e ffor

t to throw off the sur

veillance , Elso went to Andy' s home, retrieved $266,800 in cash f rom the floor sa fe, loa ded it into a briefc ase which he put into his car tr unk, and attempted to drive bac k to his law office . When law enf orce ment ag ents tried to stop his car, he ref used to stop, continuing to try

to evade the police until he wa s blocked by traff ic. Ag ents impounded his car , obtained a se arc h war rant, a nd seized the money

they found in the trunk. The c onviction under § 1956(h) for c onspiracy to violate § 1956(a) (1)( B) (ii) was ba sed on a 1999 wire transfe r Elso perf ormed for Eliz abeth Ga

rcia , the common-law

wife of Wlberth Gaviria , another

client Elso repr esente d on drugcharg es. The g overnme nt presente d evidenc e that Gar cia wa s g iven $200,000 in drugmoney to distribute for laundering. She w as to divide the money into amounts less than $10,000 to avoid feder al re portingrequire ments. Garc ia brought $10,000 of that money

to Elso, who deposited the money into his l aw f

irm' s trust acc ount, kept $200 as a c ommissi on, and wire d the re maining $9800 to a n acc ount affiliated w ith Col ombian drugsuppliers. Elso did not file fede rally require d repor

ts in conjunction with thi s transac tion. Elso , 422 F.3d at 1307-08 (footnotes omitted). 2pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 3( b) (1 ) fo r a n ew tr ia l b as edon

ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d h is m ot io n. He n ow ap pe al s th e ru li ng , arg ui ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is
m ot io n b ecau se ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce s ho wedth at(A) th e d is tri ctjud ge sh ou ldha ve recu se d b ecau se sh e h adpri orkn owl ed ge of d is pu te d e vi de nt ia ry
m at te rs an d was bi as edag ai ns t h im ; (B ) th e Gov ern m en t fa il edto di sc lo se ex cu lp at ory

ev id en ce i n v io la ti on of t he Bra dyrul e an d t he co urt fa il edto co nduc t 2
anev id en ti ary he ari ng reg ard in g t he vi ol at io n; an d (C ) th e p ro se cu ti onkn owi ng ly
us edan d re li edon pe rjure d t es ti m on y . W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Val le

jo , 29 7 F .3d11 54 , 11 63 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (rev ie win g t he di stric t
co urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t a n ew tr ia l b as edon all eg edvi ol at io ns of Bra dyan d Gig li o v. Uni te d Sta tes , 40 5 U.S. 1 50 , 92 S.Ct . 76 3, 3 1 L.Ed .2d10 4 (1 97 2) ), orth e co urt’s d en ia l o f anev id en ti ary he ari ng on su chm ot io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma ss ey , 89 F.3d14 33 , 14 43 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Ru le 33 pro vi de s tha t a “ co urt m ay va cat e an y

jud gm en t an d g ran t a n ew tri al if t he in te res t o f jus ti ce s o re qu ire s.” Fe d. R. C rim. P. 33 (a).
See B rady v. M

aryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.C t. 1194, 10 L .Ed.2d 215 (1963). 2 3To s uc ceedon a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve red

ev id en ce, the m ov an t m

us t es tabl is h t ha t (1 ) th e ev id en ce was di sc ov eredaft er tria l, (2 ) th e fai lu re o f th e d efen da ntto di sc ov er the ev id en ce was no t due to a la ckof due di li ge nc e, (3 ) th e ev id en ce i s no t m erel y

cum ul at iv e o r im

pe ach in g, (4 ) th e ev id en ce i s m at eri al to is su es be fo re the co urt, an d (5 ) th e ev id en ce i s s uc h t ha t a n ew tr ia l wou ldpro babl y

pro du ce a d iff

eren t re su lt
. Uni te d Sta tes v. J

erni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The m ov an t’s “ [f]ail ur e to m eetan y on e o f th es e el em en ts wil l d efea t” th e m ot io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Sta rr et t , 55 F.3d15 25 , 15 54 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Uns ub st an ti at edall eg at io ns an d a ccu sa ti on s wi ll no t s uf fic e to est ab li sh th es e el em en ts . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. C alde ro n , 12 7 F .3d13 14 , 13 54 -5 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (aff irming th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b ecau se th e al le ga ti on s o f im pr op rie ty w ere s up po rte d o nl y by app el la nt s “ se lf- se rv in g a ffi da vi ts ” an d wer e

“ to ta ll y un subs ta nt ia te d b y

an y ob jecti ve ly credi bl e so ur ce”)
. Whe n t he res ol ut io n o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l i s cl ear, t he di st ric t co urt i s no t re qu ire d t o h ol d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . Jerni

ga n , 34 1 F .3dat 1 28 9. Mo reo ve r, “ th e acu m enga in edby a tria l ju dg e o ve r th e co ur se of t he pr oc eed in gs ” m ak es th e sa m e co urt “ well qu al ifi ed ” to rul e o n t he m ot io n wi th ou t ho ld in g a n e vi de nt iary

he ari ng . Uni te d Sta tes v. S ch le i , 12 2 F .3d94 4, 9 94 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . W it h t he se pri nc ip le s i n m in d, we turn t o El so ’s arg um en ts . 4A.

Els o g en eral ly con te nd s t ha t h is ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce o f th e d is tri ct jud ge ’s im

parti al it y an d b ia s re qu ire d t he gra nt in g o f a n ew tr ia l. He s ta te s t ha t, pu rs ua ntto a m ot io n fi le d i n apri orun rel at edcas e, th e jud ge ob ta in ed
ex tra jud ic ia l i nf

orm at io n t ha t m al ig ne d h im an d, m or eo ve r, co nc ern eddi sp ut ed
ev id en ti ary fact s. As a res ul t, the jud ge ’s bi as ag ai ns t h im was re as on ab ly bro ug ht in to qu es ti on an d the jud ge sh ou ldha ve recu se d. W it h re sp ectto all eg at io ns of ju di ci al bi as , 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 pro vi de s: Whe ne ve r a p arty

to any pro ceed in g i n adi st ric t co urt m ak es an d fi le s a ti m el y an d s uf fic ie ntaffi da vi t t ha t the jud ge be fo re wh om th e m at te r is pe nd in g h as a pe rs on al bi as or p reju di ce ei th er ag ai ns t h im or i n fav orof a ny adv ers e p arty , su ch jud ge sh al l p ro ceedno furth er the rei n

. . . . 28 U.S.C. § 1 44 . Accor di ng ly, pr op erl y pl ead edfact s i n a§ 1 44 affi da vi t m us t b e acce pt edas t ru e. To warr an t re cu sa l, h owe ve r, a m ov an t m us t al le ge fact s t ha t
wou ldco nv in ce a re as on ab le pe rs on th atbi as actua ll y ex is ts . Ch rist o v . Pad

ge tt , 22 3 F .3d13 24 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Sect io n 4 55 (a) p ro vi de s, i n re le va ntpa rt: Any j us ti ce, jud ge , or m ag is tra te of t he Uni te d S ta te s s ha ll di squa li fy hi m se lf i n a ny pro ceed in g i n wh ic h h is im pa rti al it y m ig htreas on ab ly be qu es ti on ed
. 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 . Und er § 45 5( a), rec us al is ap pr op ria te on ly if “ anob jecti ve , 5di si nt eres te d, l ay ob se rv er fu ll y

in fo rm edof the fact s und erl y in g the gro un ds on whi chrecu sa l was so ug htwou lden te rta in a si gn ifi can t d oubtab ou t t he jud ge ’s im pa rti al it y .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa tt i , 33 7 F .3d13 17 , 13 21 (11 th Cir .20 03 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The s ta nd ardforde te rm in in g wh ethe r a jud ge ’s con du ct vi ol at ed§ 4 55 (a) i s an ob jecti ve st an da rdan d i nd ep en de ntof wh ethe r th e jud ge was actua ll y

co ns ci ou s o f th e ci rcu m st an ces crea ti ng anap pe aran ce o f im pa rti al it y . Li lj eb er

g v . Heal th Se rvs. Acq uisi ti on Co rp . , 48 6 U.S. 8 47 , 85 0, 1 08 S.Ct . 21 94 , 21 97 , 10 0 L.Ed .2d85 5 (1 98 8) . Sub se ct io n 4 55 (b )(1 ) “pr ov id es th ata jud ge als o s ha ll di squa li fy hi m se lf wh ere . . . he actua ll y ‘ ha s a p ers on al bi as or pr ejud ic e co nc ern in g apa rty, or p ers on al kn owl ed ge of d is pu te d e vi de nt ia ry fact s co nc ern in g t he pro ceed in g.’” Uni te d Sta tes v. Amedeo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 28 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (quo ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 (b )(1 )). Els o fa il edto est ab li shth athe lac ke d kno wled ge of t he ev id en ce u nd erl y in g hi s cl ai m of ju di ci al bi as at t he ti m e o f tr ia l o r th atrecu sa l was warran te d. In sh ort, the jud ge di d n otab us e h er d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r ne w tri al on th atba si s. B. Els o n ex t ar gu es th atne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce es tabl is he d tha t t he Gov ern m en t wi th he ldex cu lp at ory in fo rm at io n, wh ic h was m at eri al an d fa vo rab le
6to hi m . He st at es th atth e Gov ern m en t o m it te d fr om de br ie fin g re po rts
ex cu lp at ory

st at em en ts of t wo wi tn es se s, b ot h o f who m refu se d h is pre tri al reque st s fo r in te rv ie ws an d i nv ok edth ei r Fi fth Am en dm en t p riv il eg e ag ai ns t s el fin cri m in at io n a t t ria l. Inanaffi da vi t h e at ta ch edto hi s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n of th e co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r ne w tri al , Els o a ss ert edth atbo th 3 wit ne ss es are n ow wi ll in g t o p ro vi de ex cu lp at ory tes ti m on y . It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t

4 Els o re li edon th e Gov ern m en t’s re po rts co nc ern in g i ts de br ie fin gs of t he se wit ne ss es du rin g t ria l, at te m pt edto ha ve th ei r st at em en ts adm it te d a t t ria l, an d
as ke d t he co urt t o g ran t t he m jud ic ia l i m

m un ity or, a lt ern at iv el y , ord er the Gov ern m en t t o g iv e th em imm un it y so th ey co ul d p ro vi de ex cu lp at ory tes ti m on y . Els o fu rth er al le ge s t ha t h is du e d il ig en ce i n s eek in g t o h av e th e st at em en ts adm it te d a t t ria l was un de rm in edby the pro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t, an d t ha t s uc h
m is co nduc t warran te d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . Und er Bra dy , “ th e p ro se cu ti on is requi redto di sc lo se to th e d efen se ev id en ce fa vo rab le to th e acc us edif t he ev id en ce i s m at eri al to gu il t o r pu ni sh m en t.” St ar re tt , 55 F.3dat 1 55 5. “ The Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt h as Elso’s motion for rec onsideration is not at issue in this appeal bec ause he has adva nced 3 no argument with respec t to the district court’s orde r deny ing themotion. See U

nited States v. Cunningham , 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (statingthat when a defe ndant fa ils to offer argument on an issue, it is abandone d). The a ffidavit is the only evidenc e Elso pre sented in support of his cla im. 4 7he ldth atim

pe ach m en t ev id en ce, as well as e xc ul pa to ry ev id en ce, fal ls withi n t he Bra dyrul e.” Id
. (qu ot at io n, al te rat io n, an d e ll ip si s o m it te d) . To ob ta in a ne w tri al ba se d o n a Bra dyvi ol at io n, th e d efen dantm

us t s ho w th at(1) th e g ov ern m en t p os se ss edfav or ab le ev id en ce t o t he de fen da nt ; (2 ) th e d efen dantdo es no t p os se ss th e ev id en ce an d c ou ldno t o bt ai n t he ev id en ce wi th an y reas on ab le di li ge nc e; (3) th e p ro se cu ti on supp res se d t he fav or ab le ev id en ce; an d (4 ) ha d the ev id en ce b eendi sc lo se d t o t he de fen da nt , th ere i s a reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t t he ou tc om e wou ldha ve be endi ffer en t. Val le jo , 29 7 F .3dat 1 16 4. “ [N]ewly -av ai labl e, ex cu lp at ory tes ti m on y

of a
co de fen dantis no t co ns id eredne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce s uf fic ie ntto gra nta Ru le 33 m ot io n u nl es s i t s at is fie s [t he ] fiv e-p arttes t” art ic ul at edin Val le jo . Uni te d St at es v. DiBerna rdo , 88 0 F .2d12 16 , 12 24 -2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) (whe re d efen da nt s were “ well aware” of wi tn es s’ pro po se d t es ti m on y be fo re tria l, “ th e te st im on y can no t b e d eem ed‘ ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce’ with in th e m ean in g o f Ru le 33 ”). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g El so ’s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ba se d o n t he all eg ed Bra dyvi ol at io n b ecau se Els o fa il edto de m on st rat e th athe co ul d n otha ve po ss es se d t he ev id en ce u nd erl y in g h is cla im with
reas on ab le di li ge nc e. Mo reo ve r, th e co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g th e m ot io n wi th ou t co nduc ti ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng be cau se th e res ol ut io n o f th e Bra dycla im

was c le ar, an d El so fai le d t o o fferan y ob jecti ve ev id en ce i n

8supp ort o f th e cl ai m . C.

Els o’s fi na l ar gu m en t i s t ha t t he pro se cu ti on kn owi ng ly reli edonfal se te st im on y at t ria l i n v io la ti on of Gig li o . Elso st at es th atth e p ro ffer edtes ti m on y at is su e was fal se be cau se itwas i nc on si st en t wi th ev id en ce attri al an d c on fli ct s wi th te st im on y th atth e two witne ss es who in vo ke d the ir F ifth Am en dm en t p riv il eg e at tri al are n ow wi ll in g t o p ro vi de . For t he fir stti m e in hi s re pl y bri ef, h e arg ue s t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l (b as ed
on ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce o f a Gig li o vi ol at io n) witho utco nduc ti ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Ina sp eci fic ap pl ic at io n o f th e Bra dyrul e, th e d efen da ntcanest ab li sha du e pr oc es s v io la ti on un de r Gig li o , if h e can sh ow t ha t (1 ) th e p ro se cu to r “ kn owi ng ly
us edpe rjure d t es ti m on y

or f ai le d t o c orrectwhathe subs eque nt ly learn edwas fal se tes ti m on y ,” an d (2 ) th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t t he pe rjure d te st im on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t. Se e Dav is v. Terry , 46 5 F .3d12 49 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) (habe as co nt ex t). Se e Ven tu ra v. Att ’y. Gen
. , Fla ., 41 9 F .3d12 69 , 12 77 (11 Cir . 20 05 ) (n ot in g tha t “ th e o rig in s o f th e Gig li o do ctrin e” s te m

m edfro m th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Na pu e v. Il li no is , 36 0 U.S. 2 64 , 26 9, 7 9 S .Ct. 1 17 3, 1 17 7, 3 L.Ed.2d12 17 (19 59 ), whi chhe ldth at 9th e g ov ern m en t’s fa il ur e to co rrec t fa ls e te st im on y by a sta te witne ss vi ol at edth e de fen da nt ’s du e p ro ces s ri gh ts ). “ To o bt ai n arev ers al on th e g ro un ds th atth e go ve rn m en t re li edon pe rjure d t es ti m on y , th e fo ll owi ng m us t b e sh own : (1 ) th e co nt es te d s ta te m en ts were ac tu al ly fals e, (2 ) th e st at em en ts were m at eri al , and (3 ) th e p ro se cu ti on kn ew th atth ey were fa ls e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba il y , 12 3 F .3d 13 81 , 13 96 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). The u se of t es ti m on y th atis in co ns is te ntwith a wit ne ss ’s pri ortes ti m on y or t ha t o f a co de fen da ntdo es no t s uf fic e to sh ow t ha t t he pr of fere d t es ti m on y

was fa ls e. Hays v. Sta te of Ala
. , 85 F.3d14 92 , 14 99 (11 th Cir
. 19 96 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi ch ae l , 17 F.3d13 83 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). W e d o n ot
co ns id er ar gu m en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in a rep ly brie f. Lo vet t v. Ra y , 32 7 F.3 d 1 18 1, 1 18 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g El so ’s Rul e 33 (b )(1 ) m ot io n b as edon th e g ov ern m en t’s kno win g u se of f al se tes ti m on y be cau se Els o fa il edto pro ve th atth e p ro ffer edtes ti m on y was fa ls e. Fu rth er, be cau se he ch al le ng edth e co urt’s fa il ur e to ho ldanev id en ti ary he ari ng as t o t he al le ge d Gig li o vi ol at io n fo r th e fi rs t t im e in hi s re pl y bri ef, the arg um en t i s ab an do ne d, an d we d ecl in e to co ns id er i t. AFFIR MED.

10