Opinion ID: 59149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged Hearsay Violation

Text: Cleckler also argues that the district court improperly admitted into evidence IRS reports and memoranda that contained inadmissible hearsay statements.5 Specifically, the district court admitted government’s exhibit 25, a work paper that Agent Brand prepared during his audit of Ezy-Ryder and as part of his official duties for the IRS.6 Exhibit 25 outlined Agent Brand’s findings and contained the hearsay statements of Cleckler’s former accountant Janice Hull. The district court admitted exhibit 25 as both a record of a regularly conducted business activity and a record of a public agency, under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 803(8) 5 We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Dickerson, 248 F.3d 1036, 1046 (11th Cir. 2001). The district court’s factual findings concerning the trustworthiness of a business or public record are “reversible only if clearly erroneous.” United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1288 (11th Cir. 2002). 6 Cleckler also alleges that the district court admitted other government exhibits “that each contained many alleged witness statements and conclusions by the tax auditor.” Some of the exhibits that Cleckler identifies were not even admitted by the district court. As to the one exhibit that was admitted, exhibit 101, Cleckler fails to identify the particular statement or statements that should not have been admitted. Because Cleckler did not develop this argument in his brief, we deem it abandoned. See Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1284 n.8. In any event, exhibit 101 was an IRS form prepared by Agent Brand that contained his conclusions about what changes should be made to Gene’s Marine tax returns, and Cleckler has shown no reversible error as to the admission of exhibit 101. 8 respectively. The government argues that Cleckler has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in admitting exhibit 25, as the document fell within both the business records and public records exceptions to the hearsay rule. Further, the government points out that Cleckler has not demonstrated that the district court’s finding that exhibit 25 was otherwise trustworthy was clearly erroneous. We need not resolve these issues because we readily conclude that any alleged error in admitting exhibit 25 was harmless in any event. Through the testimony of Selfe, Morris, and Brown, and some of the fabricated documents in issue, the government clearly established that Cleckler directed the fabrication of documents reflecting fictitious third-party sales and that he submitted these documents to the IRS. Given the overwhelming evidence of Cleckler’s guilt, we conclude that any such error would have been harmless.