Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John David FLOYD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 126 F. App'x 934
Docket Number: No. 04-11010; D.C. Docket No. 03-00147-CR-S-M
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John David FLOYD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 934–934

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John David FLOYD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-11010.
D.C. Docket No. 03-00147-CR-S-M.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 20, 2005.
Stephen Andrew Strickland, Jaffe, Strickland, Beasley & Drennan, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Michael Boysie Billingsley, Miles M. Hart, Joyce White Vance, Sandra J. Stewart, US Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BACKGROUND
PER CURIAM.
John Floyd was charged with five counts of witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). He was acquitted of Count 1, but a jury found him guilty of the other charges. The Court entered a judgment consistent with the jury verdict. Floyd now appeals on various grounds.
DISCUSSION
Floyd raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the Government failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) whether the district court erred in its instructions to the jury on the elements of the offense, the safe harbor defense, and the meaning of "corruptly persuades" under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b); (3) whether the district court erred in denying his motion in limine requesting the redaction of portions of his taped conversations referring to race; (4) whether the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on grounds the Government's delayed disclosure of information pertaining to a witness violated Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); (5) whether he is entitled to a new trial because of cumulative error; and (6) whether the district court erred in applying the abuse of trust enhancement.
After a review of the record and consideration of Floyd's arguments, we conclude that no reversible error has been presented and affirm the district court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.