United States v. Latesha Garner

368 F. App'x 971

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 17, 2010
• Docket: 08-14898
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendants have been convicted of engaging in a somewhat complicated mortgage fraud scheme. Although the particulars for each property varied, Defendants would submit mortgage documents to Sun- Trust Mortgage Company. One of the Defendants who worked at SunTrust would process the documents and approve the loans. These mortgage documents would indicate that the property was worth more than its fair market value or actual selling price, misrepresent the credit and employment history of the buyer, and misrepresent the amount of equity actually put into the home.

After the mortgages were appi-oved, Defendants would split the proceeds among themselves, usually off the record. The FBI investigated and was able to get one co-conspirator to plead guilty and testify. Two co-conspirators fled and are still at large. The remaining co-conspirators were tried and convicted.

Briefly stated, the appeal now presents these issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict each Defendant for their role in the conspiracy, (2) whether the District Court abused its discretion when it decided that prosecutors did not have a racial motive for striking a juror, (3) whether the District Court clearly erred in dismissing a juror who had a traffic accident, (4) whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying motions for a new trial, (5) whether the District Court abused its discretion in admitting evidence and testimony, (6) whether the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to give a requested jury instruction, (7) whether the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to sever the trial of one co-conspirator, (8) whether the District Court abused its discretion dui'ing sentencing, and (9) whether one Defendant’s lawyer was constitutionally ineffective.

We see no reversible error. We decline to rule on the claim of ineffectiveness of counsel; for background, see United States v. Gholston, 932 F.2d 904, 905 (11th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.