United States v. Castleberry

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJune 23, 1997
Docket96-8596
StatusPublished

This text of United States v. Castleberry (United States v. Castleberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Castleberry, (11th Cir. 1997).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-8596

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDDIE CASTLEBERRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

(July 25, 1997)

Before BLACK, Circuit Judge, FAY and ALARCON*, Senior Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________________________________________ *Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. Appellant's letter motion to correct the opinion is GRANTED.

The court's opinion is modified as follows:

1. The last sentence of the first paragraph on page 2256

of the slip opinion is deleted. In its place the

following shall appear:

During the trial, Roger Rozen, an attorney and

government witness, testified that the numbers

next to his name reflected proper referral

fees for cases that London had either sent to

him or that they had worked on together. The

government also presented the testimony of a

James Cochran, a DUI defendant, who testified

that he paid London directly to fix his DUI

cases. Thus, the authenticity of the entries

was clearly established.

2. The third full paragraph on page 2256 of the slip

opinion is deleted. In its place the following shall

appear:

The dates of the entries are reasonably close

to the dates of the conspiracy alleged in the

indictment. The grand jury indictment clearly

states "beginning on a date which is unknown

to the Grand Jury, but which occurred on or

before January 1, 1988 . . . ." R1-1 (emphasis

added). Cochran's trial testimony revealed

that he paid London before, during, and after

2 the January 1, 1988 date alleged in the

indictment.

Beginning in 1983 and continuing until 1992,

Cochran testified that during this period he

received at least eight DUI tickets in which

London "represented" him. On these eight

separate occasions, Cochran testified that he

paid London amounts ranging from three hundred

dollars to seven hundred dollars to handle his

DUI tickets. In each of these instances,

Cochran further stated that he never appeared

before a judge, never paid a fine, and never

lost his driver's license. This testimony

alone is sufficient to corroborate the

language and date used in the indictment and

to satisfy the "during the course" requirement

of Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Rodriguez
218 F.3d 1243 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Castleberry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-castleberry-ca11-1997.