United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 19, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41608
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIM C. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-02-CR-105-1
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tim C. Williams appeals from his judgment of conviction and
sentence and final order of criminal forfeiture following his
guilty plea to conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of
cocaine. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (h); 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. We affirm.
Williams argues that Peña violated his duty of loyalty to
him by testifying against him before the grand jury and at his
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-41608
-2-
sentencing hearing; Williams also contends that the Government
improperly exploited Peña’s “conflict” by calling Peña as a
witness. Williams has not demonstrated that his former counsel,
Albert Peña, had an actual conflict of interest arising from
Peña’s representation of multiple clients with conflicting
interests. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 349-50 (1980).
Further, because Peña’s testimony did not involve communications
protected by the attorney-client privilege, Williams’s arguments
lack merit. See United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 618 (5th
Cir. 2002) (“Under the crime-fraud exception to the
attorney-client privilege, the privilege can be overcome where
communication or work product is intended to further continuing
or future criminal or fraudulent activity.”) (internal quotations
and citation omitted), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1192 (2003).
Williams’s written plea agreement, in which he agreed, inter
alia, to the forfeiture of one million dollars, supports the
district court’s determination as to the amount of the monetary
forfeiture. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2 (b)(1). To the extent that
Williams suggests, in a one-sentence footnote in his original
appellate brief, that the Government breached the plea agreement,
thereby relieving him of his own obligations in the agreement,
Williams has not adequately briefed the issue in his initial
brief on appeal and it is abandoned. See Cinel v. Connick, 15
F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d
247, 255-56 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc) (observing that this court
No. 02-41608
-3-
is not required to search the record to find a legal and factual
basis for an issue that is inadequately briefed).
Williams’s “Unopposed Motion to Supplement the Record with
Government’s Motion and District Court’s Order Unsealing
Sentencing Transcripts” is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY because the
Government’s motion and district court’s order are now part of
the record on appeal.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED AS
UNNECESSARY.