Case: 12-11667 Date Filed: 05/28/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11667
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80018-KAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS C. CORREA,
a.k.a. Thomas Carl Correa,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 28, 2013)
Before BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Anne C. Conway, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 12-11667 Date Filed: 05/28/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Thomas Correa appeals his conviction following a jury trial of one count of
conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and one count
of making a false statement on a loan application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.
Correa raises three issues on appeal. He argues that: (1) the district court erred in
denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient
evidence to support his conspiracy conviction; (2) the district court abused its
discretion in admitting a videotape recording of an undercover meeting because the
government failed to lay the proper foundation; and (3) the district court erred in
denying his motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct. We find no
reversible error on the record.
Although the majority of Correa’s dealings in the bank fraud scheme were
with a government informant and a FBI agent, the evidence was sufficient for a
reasonable jury to find that Correa knew the informant would enlist the help of
bank loan officers, such as William Hebert, to acquire the fraudulent loan. The
informant repeatedly assured Correa that he had connections at the bank and
explicitly told Correa that he had bribed Hebert to process the fraudulent loan
application. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for
conspiracy and we affirm the district court’s denial of Correa’s motion for a
judgment of acquittal.
2
Case: 12-11667 Date Filed: 05/28/2013 Page: 3 of 4
We also reject Correa’s argument that the district court abused its discretion
when it admitted into evidence a videotape recording of an undercover meeting
because the government failed to properly authenticate the tape. It was not an
abuse of discretion to conclude that the FBI agent’s testimony regarding the
informant’s competency to operate the equipment, the identification of the
individuals shown on the tape, the informant’s inability to tamper with the
recording, and that the recording appeared to be continuous was sufficient to
establish the accuracy of the recording.
Finally, Correa argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion
for a new trial. Correa first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the jury
was given an un-redacted version of videotape during deliberations that the court
had redacted during trial because it included inadmissible hearsay. Correa was
aware during trial that the district court ruled a portion of a videotape to be
inadmissible and had an opportunity to examine the tape before it was sent to the
jury. Thus, he cannot show that his failure to discover the un-redacted videotape
before the jury returned its verdict was not due to a lack of due diligence and we
affirm the district court’s denial of his motion on this ground.
Correa also argues that he is entitled to a new trial because of newly-
discovered evidence that the jury engaged in premature deliberations. The alleged
newly discovered evidence consisted of an affidavit from a friend of Correa,
3
Case: 12-11667 Date Filed: 05/28/2013 Page: 4 of 4
stating that she had been approached by an alternate juror several weeks after the
trial who claimed that many of the jurors discussed the case before the start of
deliberations and that one of the jurors attempted to convince the others of
Correa’s guilt during trial. No affidavit was submitted from the alternate juror. In
light of the district court’s broad discretion to determine whether evidence of jury
misconduct warrants an evidentiary hearing and the stringent limitations imposed
on a court’s ability to question jurors about their deliberations post-verdict, see,
e.g., United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d 1159, 1186-87 (11th Cir. 2011); United
States v. Cuthel, 903 F.2d 1381, 1383 (11th Cir. 1990), under the circumstances
here, we find no abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
4