[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 11, 2010
No. 09-11101 JOHN P. LEY
ACTING CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00211-CR-ORL-22-DAB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS M. CANDELARIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 11, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and BALDOCK,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
Luis Candelario appeals his conviction for one count of conspiring to
commit wire fraud and honest services fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. He
first argues that the government presented insufficient evidence to convict him of
conspiracy to commit money or property wire fraud or honest services fraud.
Second, he argues that 18 U.S.C. § 1346, the statute defining honest services fraud,
is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him because it is vague. Third, he
argues that the district court abused its discretion in restricting the evidence
Candelario sought to present regarding a prior lawsuit between him and his then-
employer. Finally, Candelario argues that the district court erred in failing to give
his proposed jury instructions.
Having reviewed the record, and considered the briefs and oral arguments of
the parties, we are satisfied that the government presented sufficient evidence to
convict Candelario for conspiring to commit wire fraud. Thus, we need not
address his challenge to the honest services fraud statute, § 1346, or to the
sufficiency of the evidence regarding conspiracy to commit honest services fraud.
We also find no reversible error in the district court’s evidentiary rulings or
jury instructions. The documents Candelario sought to admit into evidence
pertained to a separate employment lawsuit between him and his then-employer,
and there was no abuse of discretion in the exclusion of these documents as
2
irrelevant and cumulative. As to the jury instructions, the district court correctly
found that Candelario’s proposed instructions were sufficiently covered by the
Eleventh Circuit Pattern Instructions or inconsistent with other instructions.
Accordingly, Candelario’s conviction is
AFFIRMED.
3