[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-14898 MAR 17, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-00472-CR-02-RWS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LATESHA GARNER,
KEITH GARNER,
SHALONDA HARRIS,
GREGG SAVAGE,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(March 17, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and BARBOUR,* District
Judge.
*
Honorable William Henry Barbour, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.
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 SunTrust 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 approved, 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
2
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
during 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.
3