Opinion ID: 778956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for new trial, Sentencing

Text: 38 Pace contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial or, alternatively, in failing to depart downward at sentencing because of the government's failure to disclose the IRS letter written by Garcia-Mena, an AFIMEX employee testifying for the government. Garcia-Mena had indicated to the IRS that she could not testify as to the accuracy of AFIMEX documents drafted before she started in the company's treasury department. Because Garcia-Mena did not have responsibility in AFIMEX's treasury department until September 1992, Pace argues that two documents were improperly admitted through Garcia-Mena: (1) the April 27 letter in which AFIMEX reported the amount of premiums to ABC and requested Pace to send wire transfer instructions; and (2) the April 30 letter from Pace to ABACO, confirming his instructions to wire all amounts deposited into the ABC / AIG accounts to Pace's personal account in Ohio. 39 The record indicates that at least one of the documents would have been admitted even if Pace had timely learned of the IRS letter. The April 30 fax from Pace to ABACO was not introduced into evidence by Garcia-Mena, but by Pace's executive assistant, Carmen Barney, who identified the signature on the fax as that of Pace. 40 The April 27 correspondence, whether or not admitted, does not weigh heavily against the verdict. See United States v. Chen, 754 F.2d 817, 821 (9th Cir.1985). The evidence remains uncontroverted that Pace faxed wire transfer instructions to ABACO on April 30, directing it to transfer all funds deposited in the ABC / AIG accounts to his account in Ohio. The evidence is also undisputed that, after receiving the fax, ABACO made two wire transfers in accordance with Pace's instructions. That AFIMEX, not ABACO, requested wire transfer instructions on April 27 does not materially address whether ABACO transferred funds pursuant to Pace's instructions. 41 Pace argues that the late disclosure also prevented him from subpoenaing a witness. The IRS letter identified accountant Julian Salle-Arevalo (Salle-Arevalo) as one familiar with AFIMEX payment orders and accounts at the time of the wire transfers. Had he timely learned of this information, Pace argues, he would have called Salle-Arevalo to the stand and asked him to explain the wire transfers. 42 Pace's argument is misplaced, because Salle-Arevalo worked for AFIMEX, not ABACO. Accordingly, Salle-Arevalo could have testified that AFIMEX deposited a certain amount of premiums into the ABC / AIG accounts of ABACO. He would not, however, have first-hand knowledge to testify about correspondence between ABACO and Pace or any transfers that took place as a result of their communications. 43 Although the government erred by not timely disclosing the IRS letter, the error did not prejudice Pace as to warrant a new trial or, alternatively, a downward departure at sentencing.