questionedwmp10

No.
02-20843INTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHEFIFTHCIRCUITUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.
THERM-ALL,INC.
,ETAL.
,Defendants-Appellants.
ONAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHESOUTHERNDISTRICTOFTEXAS,HOUSTONDIVISION(HONORABLENANCYF.
ATLAS)BRIEFFORTHEAPPELLEEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICAR.
HEWITTPATEActingAssistantAttorneyGeneralDUNCANS.
CURRIEMARKR.
ROSMANJAMESM.
GRIFFINKARENJ.
SHARPDeputyAssistantAttorneyGeneralA.
JENNIFERBRAYAttorneysJOHNJ.
POWERSIIIU.
S.
DepartmentofJusticeJOHNP.
FONTEAntitrustDivisionAttorneysThanksgivingTowerU.
S.
DepartmentofJustice1601ElmStreetAntitrustDivisionSuite4950601DStreet,N.
W.
Dallas,TX75201-4717Washington,D.
C.
20530(214)880-9401(202)514-2435iSTATEMENTREGARDINGORALARGUMENTBecauseoftheextentoftherecordandthenumberofissuesraised,appelleebelievesthatoralargumentwillbeofassistancetotheCourt.
iiTABLEOFCONTENTSPageSTATEMENTOFJURISDICTION1ISSUESPRESENTED1STATEMENTOFTHECASE1STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS21.
Background22.
TheConspiracy4SUMMARYOFARGUMENT15ARGUMENT18I.
SUFFICIENTEVIDENCESUPPORTSTHEJURY'SVERDICTS.
.
.
.
18A.
StandardofReview18B.
Therm-AllAndSupremeEngagedInALong-TermPriceFixingConspiracy201.
ConsistencyInTheJury'sVerdictsIsNotRequired202.
Therm-All223.
Supreme254.
Appellants'OtherArgumentsGoToTheWeight–AndNotTheSufficiency–OfTheEvidence28iiiC.
TheJuryCorrectlyDeterminedThatTheConspiracyContinuedIntoThePeriodGovernedByTheStatuteOfLimitations33D.
ThereWasNoPrejudicialVarianceBetweenTheIndictmentAndTheEvidence42II.
THEJURYWASPROPERLYINSTRUCTED47A.
StandardOfReview47B.
TheCourt'sIntentInstructionsWereCorrect47III.
THEGOVERNMENTDIDNOTPREJUDICETHERM-ALLBYFAILINGTOPRODUCEPHONERECORDS53IV.
THEGOVERNMENT'SCLOSINGARGUMENTDIDNOTPREJUDICEAPPELLANTS57A.
StandardOfReview57B.
Supreme58C.
Therm-All61CONCLUSION66CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE67CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE68ADDENDAivTABLEOFAUTHORITIESCases:PageBradyv.
Maryland,373U.
S.
83(1963)53Dunnv.
UnitedStates,284U.
S.
390(1932)20,21,22Edmondv.
Collins,8F.
3d290(5thCir.
1993)19Fiswickv.
UnitedStates,329U.
S.
211(1946)40Glasserv.
UnitedStates,315U.
S.
60(1942)18Grunewaldv.
UnitedStates,353U.
S.
391(1957)33Harrisv.
Rivera,454U.
S.
339(1981)21Hollandv.
UnitedStates,348U.
S.
121(1954)19Huffv.
UnitedStates,192F.
2d911(5thCir.
1951)40Hydev.
UnitedStates,225U.
S.
347(1912)40Nashv.
UnitedStates,229U.
S.
373(1913)34,39,40PlymouthDealersAss'nofNorthernCalif.
v.
UnitedStates,279F.
2d128(9thCir.
1960)30,31Richardsonv.
Marsh,481U.
S.
200(1987)42Styronv.
Johnson,262F.
3d438(5thCir.
2001)57UnitedStatesv.
A-A-AElectricalCo.
,788F.
2d242(4thCir.
1986)35,40vUnitedStatesv.
AllStarIndustries,962F.
2d465(5thCir.
1992).
.
34,35,47,53UnitedStatesv.
Andreas,216F.
3d645(7thCir.
2000)29UnitedStatesv.
Baptise,264F.
3d578(5thCir.
2001)63UnitedStatesv.
Calverly,37F.
3d160(5thCir.
1994)54,55UnitedStatesv.
CargoServiceStations,Inc.
,657F.
2d676(5thCir.
.
1981)21,34,48,52,53UnitedStatesv.
Colmenares-Hernandez,659F.
2d39(5thCir.
1981)19UnitedStatesv.
Dotterweich,320U.
S.
277(1943)21UnitedStatesv.
DynalectricCo.
,859F.
2d1559(11thCir.
1988)35UnitedStatesv.
Girard,744F.
2d1170(5thCir.
1984)35,41UnitedStatesv.
Gordon,780F.
2d1165(5thCir.
1986)21UnitedStatesv.
Hamilton,689F.
2d1262(6thCir.
1982)39UnitedStatesv.
Harrelson,705F.
2d733(5thCir.
1983)47,52UnitedStatesv.
HayterOilCo.
,51F.
3d1265(6thCir.
1995)34,36,39,40UnitedStatesv.
Helmich,704F.
2d547(11thCir.
1983)35,41UnitedStatesv.
Herrera,289F.
3d311(5thCir.
2002)18UnitedStatesv.
Ibarra,286F.
3d795(5thCir.
2002)18viUnitedStatesv.
Jefferson,258F.
3d405(5thCir.
2001)57UnitedStatesv.
Kissel,218U.
S601(1910)34,40UnitedStatesv.
Leal,74F.
3d600(5thCir.
1996)19UnitedStatesv.
Lopez,74F.
3d575(5thCir.
1996)18,19UnitedStatesv.
Manges,110F.
3d1162(5thCir.
1997)40UnitedStatesv.
Martin,790F.
2d1215(5thCir.
1986)52UnitedStatesv.
Medina,161F.
3d867(5thCir.
2002)18UnitedStatesv.
Mennuti,679F.
2d1032(2ndCir.
1982)35,42UnitedStatesv.
MisleBus&Equip.
Co.
,967F.
2d1227(8thCir.
1992)29UnitedStatesv.
Morgan,117F.
3d849(5thCir.
1997)45-47UnitedStatesv.
Morris,46F.
3d410(5thCir.
1995)42-47UnitedStatesv.
Morrow,177F.
3d272(5thCir.
1999)43,46,57,59UnitedStatesv.
Munoz,150F.
3d401(5thCir.
1998)57,64,65UnitedStatesv.
NorthernImprovementCo.
,814F.
2d540(8thCir.
1987)35UnitedStatesv.
Olano,507U.
S.
725(1993)55UnitedStatesv.
Ortega-Reyna,148F.
3d540(5thCir.
1998)22UnitedStatesv.
Park,421U.
S.
658(1975)50UnitedStatesv.
PortsmouthPavingCorp.
,694F.
2d312(4thCir.
1982).
.
36,39viiUnitedStatesv.
Pena-Rodriguez,110F.
3d1120(5thCir.
1997)19UnitedStatesv.
Powell,469U.
S.
57(1984)20,21,22UnitedStatesv.
Reveles,190F.
3d678(5thCir.
1999)22UnitedStatesv.
Richerson,833F.
2d1147(5thCir.
1987)45,46UnitedStatesv.
Robertson,110F.
3d1113(5thCir.
1997)33UnitedStatesv.
Rodriguez-Mireles,896F.
2d890(5thCir.
1990)19UnitedStatesv.
Socony-VacuumOilCo.
,310U.
S.
150(1940)34,39UnitedStatesv.
Salazar,66F.
3d723(5thCir.
1995)19UnitedStatesv.
Scott,678F.
2d606(5thCir.
1982)19UnitedStatesv.
Tomblin,46F.
3d1369(5thCir.
1995)57UnitedStatesv.
Trevino,556F.
2d1265(5thCir.
1977)19,22UnitedStatesv.
UnitedStatesGypsumCo.
,438U.
S.
422(1978)48,51-53UnitedStatesv.
Vital,68F.
3d114(5thCir.
1995)55UnitedStatesv.
YoungBros.
Inc.
,728F.
2d686(5thCir.
1984)53viiiFEDERALSTATUTESANDRULES15U.
S.
C.
§11,2,3418U.
S.
C.
§3714018U.
S.
C.
§3231118U.
S.
C.
§32823328U.
S.
C.
§12911Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
52(b)55STATEMENTOFJURISDICTIONThedistrictcourthadjurisdictionpursuantto15U.
S.
C.
§1and18U.
S.
C.
§3231.
ItenteredfinaljudgmentandsentenceonJuly12,2002.
AppellantseachfiledatimelynoticeofappealonJuly18,2002.
R.
357-58.
ThisCourt'sjurisdictionrestson28U.
S.
C.
§1291.
ISSUESPRESENTED1.
Whethersubstantialevidencesupportsthejury'sverdictsthatappellantsknowinglyparticipatedinthesingleconspiracychargedintheIndictment.
2.
Whethersubstantialevidencedemonstratesthattheconspiracycontinuedintothestatuteoflimitationsperiod.
3.
Whetherthecourtproperlyinstructedthejuryregardingtheintentelementinapricefixingprosecution.
4.
Whetherthegovernment'sinadvertentdiscoveryviolationprejudicedTherm-All.
5.
Whetherthecourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenitconcludedthatthegovernment'sclosingargumentdidnotprejudiceappellants.
STATEMENTOFTHECASEOnMay31,2000,afederalgrandjurysittinginHouston,TexasindictedTherm-All,Inc.
("Therm-All"),itspresident,RobertSmigel("Smigel"),Supreme1Duringthetimeperiodatissue(January1994-June1995),TulaThompson'snamewasTulaTurner.
Thus,referencesintherecordtoTulaTurneraretodefendantThompson.
2Insulation,Inc.
("Supreme"),anditspresident,TulaThompson("Thompson"),1forconspiring,fromJanuary1994throughatleastJune1995,tofixthepricesofmetalbuildinginsulationsoldintheUnitedStates,inviolationofSection1oftheShermanAct,15U.
S.
C.
§1.
R.
1.
OnOctober17,2001,afteraseven-weektrial,ajuryconvictedTherm-AllandSupremebutacquittedSmigelandThompson.
R.
279.
OnJune10,2002,DistrictJudgeNancyAtlasdeniedTherm-All'sandSupreme'smotionsforacquittalorforanewtrial.
R.
330.
OnJuly12,2002,thecourtsentencedappellantTherm-Alltopayafineof$1,500,000andtoserveafive-yeartermofprobation.
R.
355.
Supremewasfined$1,000,000andsentencedtoafive-yeartermofprobation.
R.
356.
STATEMENTOFTHEFACTS1.
BackgroundMetalbuildinginsulationlaminators,suchasTherm-AllandSupreme,purchaseunfacedfiberglassinsulationinvariousthicknessesfromfiberglassmanufacturers,laminateitwithathinbackingsuchasvinyloraluminumfoil,andthensellthelaminatedproducttometalbuildingmanufacturersorcontractorsfor2GX81Aisasampleofmetalbuildinginsulation.
3Duringopeningargumentasademonstrativeaidforthejury,thegovernmentused,withoutobjection,amapoftheUnitedStatesdepictingthelocationsofTherm-All,Supreme,Bay,MizellandCGI.
Tr.
8-9.
FortheCourt'sconvenience,thatmapisreproducedasAddendumAtothisbrief.
3useinmetalbuildings.
2Tr.
1740-47.
Duringtheconspiracyperiod,Therm-All,Supreme,BayInsulationSupplyCompany("Bay"),MizellBrothersCompany("Mizell"),andCGISilvercote("CGI")werethelargestcompetitorsinthemetalbuildinginsulationindustry.
Tr.
1362-63,1758;DX1740.
Therm-AlloperatedplantsinCleveland,Ohio,Columbus,Wisconsin,andstartinginMay1994,Lancaster,Pennsylvania.
Tr.
155-56;Therm-AllBr.
6.
BecauseTherm-AllsolditsproductsprimarilyintheMidwestfromMinnesotatoNewYork,itspriceswereconsidered"northern"prices.
Tr.
155,208-09.
SupremeoperatedplantsinFresno,California,KansasCity,Missouri,Birmingham,Alabama,andGreensboro,NorthCarolina,andthereforepublishedpricesforthe"west"and"south.
"Tr.
221-22,1140-41,1149,1981-82.
AlthoughTherm-AllandSupremegenerallydidnotsellinthesameareas,bothofthemcompetedvigorouslywithBay,Mizell,andCGI.
3Tr.
154,1362-63,1758,1986,2224-25;DX1740;SupremeBr.
5-6.
Infact,Mizellpublishedpricesforthe"north,""south"and"west,"andBaypublishedpricesforthe"north"and"south.
"Tr.
144,217-18.
During1992and1993themetalbuildingindustrywasexpanding.
But4whilemoreandmoremetalbuildinginsulationwasbeingsold,priceskeptfalling.
Individualattemptstoraisepricesintheearly90swereunsuccessful,andpricescontinuedtodrop.
Tr.
161(priceswere"aslowasI'veeverseen"),162-64,1763-64,2223.
Inlate1993,thefiberglassmanufacturersannouncedapriceincreaseandan"allocation"systemunderwhichtheywouldbeproducingmoreresidentialandlessmetalbuildinginsulation,thuslimitingsupplytothelaminators.
Tr.
167-69,1119-21.
Thelaminatorssawthepriceincreaseandallocationasanopportunitytoraiseandmaintainhigherprices.
2.
TheConspiracyInOctober1993,duringaconventioninDallas,Texas,thelaminatorsdiscussedformingacommitteetoestablishproductandsafetystandardsformetalbuildinginsulation.
Tr.
170-72.
Subsequently,SmigelcalledWallyRhodes,thenationalsalesmanagerforMizell,todiscusswhetherMizellhadanyinterestinsupportingthelaminators'committee.
Tr.
138-39,173-74.
Aweekortwolater,SmigelagaincalledRhodestodiscussthecommittee.
NeartheendofthatconversationSmigelmentionedtheprevailinglowpricesintheindustry,characterizingthesituationas"adogeatdogmarket.
"Tr.
175-76.
SmigelbelievedthatBay,whichwasexpandingintomanynewareasatthetime,wasresponsibleforthelowpricesandRhodesagreed.
Tr.
162,176.
Smigelthensaid4Thepublishedpricesheetscontainedseveralpricebrackets.
Eachbracketstatedapricebasedonthenumberofsquarefeetordered.
Tr.
213-15,1768.
5Severalsmallercompetitorswerealsorecruitedintotheconspiracy.
PeterYueh,aformervicepresidentofBriteInsulation,acompanythatsoldprimarilyinTexas(Tr.
1221,1228),testifiedthatBritejoinedtheconspiracyinJanuary1994.
Tr.
1236-39.
RhodesrecruitedInsulations,Inc.
(Tr.
359-62,1791-95),andMaloofrecruitedPremier.
Tr.
460-61.
5thathehadagreedwithMarkMaloofofBaytoincreaseandmaintainprices.
Thiswouldbeaccomplished,Smigelexplained,bypublishingpricesheetswithnearlyidenticalprices,and"selling.
.
.
onthepricesheet,notcomingbelowthepricesheetandnotjumpingthebrackets.
"4Tr.
177.
Rhodes"immediately"agreedthatMizellwoulddothesame.
Tr.
177-78.
Subsequently,inJanuary1994,RhodeshadsimilarconversationswithMaloofandwithThompsoninwhichtheyagreedtoraiseprices,usebracketpricing,andnotgooffthepricesheets.
Tr.
179-85.
Thus,byJanuary1994Smigel,Thompson,MaloofandRhodeshadreachedanagreement"togetthepricingupintheindustryandmakemoremoney.
"Tr.
185-86.
SmigelsubsequentlybroughtCGIintotheconspiracy.
5Tr.
189-90,324-27,539-40,1784.
Tocarryouttheiragreement,theconspiratorsfaxedeachothertheirpricesheetsandspokeonthephone"togetthepricinginlinewitheachother.
.
.
withinacoupleofdollarsofeachotherineachbracket,"tryingnottousethe"exact"samepricessothatcustomerswouldnotgetsuspicious.
Tr.
186-87.
Forexample,6PhonerecordsconfirmthefaxwassentonJanuary26,1994,thedayaftera20-minutecallbetweenMizellandTherm-All.
GX10Aat8-9.
7Thetwoproductswerereinforcedvinyl("Vinyl-Reinforced"onGX1,"PSK-VR"onGX14,and"WMP-VR"onGX43C)andstandarddutypoly-scrim-Kraft("PSK-10"onGX1,"PSK-STD"onGX14,and"WMP-10"onGX43C).
Tr.
212-13,2721-22.
AlthoughRhodesonlycomparedthe3-inchpricesforthosetwoproducts,pricesforthe6-inchsizeofthosetwoproductswerealsoverysimilar.
SeeGX1,GX14,GX43C.
Infact,SmigeladmittedthatTherm-All'sandMizell'sDecember1994pricesfor6-inchstandarddutypoly-scrim-Kraftwerenearlyidentical.
Tr.
2721-22,2802-03;GX41H&42K.
6RhodesreceivedacopyofTherm-All'sFebruary14,1994pricesheet(GX14)fromSmigelorsomeoneinSmigel'sofficeinJanuary1994whileRhodeswasworkingonMizell'sprices.
Tr.
193-94,207-08,981-82.
Rhodesthen"tried[his]besttogetthenumbersascloseas[he]could.
.
.
to[Smigel's]numberswithoutbeingidenticalineverybracket.
"Tr.
214.
Whenhefinished,RhodesfaxedMizell'sdraftnorthernpricesheet(GX1)toSmigel"fourtofivedays"beforeitbecameeffective.
6Tr.
208-11.
Duringtrial,RhodescomparedTherm-All's(GX14)andMizell's(GX1)February1994northernprices,andthenTherm-All's(GX14)andBay'sFebruary1994northernprices(GX43C),fortwotypesofinsulationpopularinthenorth:allthreepricesheetshadnearlyidenticalpricesforthoseproducts.
7Tr.
211-14,219-20.
RhodesalsocomparedtheFebruary1994southernpricesfor3-inchwhite8Threeinchwhitevinylwasthebiggestsellerinboththesouthandwest.
Tr.
222,389,1124-25,1984-85,2104-05,2215-16,3905.
9MizellandSupremeweretheonlymajorcompetitorsinCalifornia.
Tr.
1122,1129,1986-87.
7vinylfromMizell(GX42B),Bay(GX43B)andSupreme(GX40A).
8Mizell'spriceswereidenticaltoBay'sexceptforaonedollardifferenceinthefirstcolumn,andbothwereverysimilartoSupreme's.
Tr.
221-24.
AndwhileBayandMizellhadfourcolumnsandSupremeonlythree,RhodesexplainedthatwasnotaproblembecausetheordersonwhichSupreme'slastcolumnprice($182)wouldapplygenerallywouldfallintoeitherBay'sandMizell'sthirdpricecolumn($185),ortheirlastpricecolumn($180).
Tr.
223-24.
RhodestoldLeifNilsen,Mizell'sCaliforniaplantmanager,thathehadanagreementwith"MissTula"ofSupremetokeeptheCaliforniapricesupand,therefore,theyweretosticktothepricesheets.
9Tr.
1123,1130-31.
Ononeoccasion,RhodescalledNilsenandtoldhimto"standbythefaxmachinebecauseshewasgoingtofax[him]acopyofapricesheet,"andNilsenthenreceived"Supreme'spricesheet"withaSupremefaxheader.
Tr.
1140-41.
WhenRhodestoldNilsentocompareSupreme'spricestoMizell's,Nilsenfoundthem"verysimilar.
Theywereoffbyafewdollarsinthemainitemsthat[they]sold.
"Tr.
1141.
8Rhodesexplainedthatexchangingpricesheetswiththeotherconspiratorsmadepricing"aloteasier"because"once[he]hadthepricesheetsfromSupremeorfromBayorfromTherm-All.
.
.
[he]knewwhere[Mizell]wasgoingtohavetobeonthepricing.
"Tr.
225.
Priorto1994,however,laminatorsneverexchangedtheirpriceswithcompetitors.
Tr.
225-26,1266-67.
Indeed,priorto1994,Bay,MizellandSupremedidnothavepricesheets.
Tr.
1766-67(Mizell),2226(Bay),3168-69(Supreme).
Moreover,salespeoplefromBay,Mizell,SupremeandTherm-Allallexplainedthatpriorto1994theyhadconsiderablepricingfreedom,butoncethe1994pricesheetswereissuedtheywereinstructedtosticktothosepricesunlesstheyreceivedauthorizationtodeviatefromthem.
Tr.
1123(Mizell);Tr.
1364-65;GX77A&B(Therm-All);Tr.
1990-91,2107-08,2137,2148;GX37(Supreme);Tr.
2226-32(Bay).
Severalwitnessesexplainedhowthevariouscompaniespolicedandenforcedtheagreement.
Rhodestestifiedthatwhenaconspiratorbelievedanotherconspiratorwasofferingtoolowapricetoamutualcustomer,theywouldcallandtrytoverifythecomplaintorobtainanexplanation.
Tr.
322,338-39.
Forexample,hesaidSmigelcalledhimseveraltimesin1994complainingthatJackMingle,aMizellsalesmaninPennsylvania,hadjumpedabracket.
Tr.
323-25.
Mingle,whotestifiedthatRhodesinstructedhimtostayonthepricesheets10Similarly,inFebruary1994,Mizell'sMinnesotasalesmansentRhodesTherm-All'spricesheetforSteelStructures,ametalbuildingmanufacturer(GX2).
WhenRhodescalledSmigelandaskedwhyTherm-All'spriceswere"somuchlower"thanMizell's,SmigelaskedRhodestofaxtheTherm-Allsheettohimsothathecouldcheckonit.
RhodesthenwroteSmigel'snameandfaxnumberonGX2andfaxedittoSmigel.
Tr.
327-32.
11MingletestifiedthatinMarch1994,whenhehadquestionedRhodesaboutsomeofthepricesonMizell'sFebruary1994pricesheet,RhodesimmediatelypulledTherm-All's,Bay'sandCGI's"original"pricesheetsoutof9because"hehadanagreementwiththeotherlaminators.
.
.
torestrictthemselvestoquoting.
.
.
ontheirpricesheets"andthattheotherlaminatorswere"Therm-All,CGI,BayandSupreme,"verifiedRhodes'testimony.
Tr.
1775.
RhodescalledMinglethreedifferenttimesin1994afterMinglehadjumpedabracketonaquote,andtoldMinglethatSmigelhadgivenRhodesacopyofMingle'squote"andthatMr.
Smigelwasverydisturbedthat[Mingle]was.
.
.
notstayinginthebrackets.
"Tr.
1815-16.
ThefirsttimeRhodestoldMingletoturntheorderdown,"basicallyturntheorderovertoTherm-All,"butMinglerefused.
Tr.
1817.
ThesecondtimeMingleagainwastoldto"backoffthequoteandturnthejobovertoTherm-All"andhedid.
Tr.
1818.
WhenRhodescalledaboutathirdcustomerMingle"cuthimoff,"tellingRhodeshewouldnotdiscusshispricingbasedonanyinformationobtainedfromcompetitors.
10Tr.
1819-20.
Priorto1994,MingleneverheardRhodesmentionSmigelinrelationtoaMizellaccount,andheneversawRhodesusingcompetitors'pricesheets.
11Tr.
1953-54.
hisbriefcasetodetermineiftherewasanerror.
Tr.
1797-1800.
12NilsenrememberedthatonatleastonesuchoccasionRhodestoldhim:"I'vespokentoher.
Shesaiditwasamistake.
Jim[Miranda]won'tdoitagain.
"Tr.
1134.
MirandawasSupreme'sCaliforniasalesman.
Id.
10NilsenalsocalledRhodeswheneverhefoundSupremepricingbelowtheagreementandfaxedhimSupreme'squote.
RhodeswouldthentellNilsen"hewasgoingtocallandseewhatwasgoingon.
"Tr.
1131-33.
RhodesgenerallycalledNilsenbacktosayhehad"discussed"thequotewith"her"andthat"[i]twon'thappenagain.
"12Tr.
1133-34.
Similarly,Supremecalledco-conspiratorswhenitsuspectedtheywerenotcomplyingwiththeagreement.
Forexample,MirandatoldDanCereghino,hisplantmanager,that,accordingtoacustomer,Supreme'squotetothatcustomerwashigherthanMizell'squote.
CereghinotoldMiranda"thatit'snotsupposedtohappen"andthen"hecalledTula.
"Tr.
1992-93,1998.
WhenCereghinohandedthephonetoMiranda,Thompsonaskedhim"areyousure"andthensaid"letmecallyouback.
"Tr.
1998.
WhenThompsoncalledback"momentarily"shetoldMirandathat"shehadspokentoWally,"whoMirandaunderstoodwasRhodes,andthatthecustomerwasonly"pulling[his]leg"soheshouldjust"forgetaboutit.
"Tr.
2001.
Twoadditionalpriceincreaseswerecoordinatedin1994,andathird–for11"unfaced"insulation–in1995.
Tr.
187.
Foreachincrease,theconspiratorsexchangedproposedpricesandagreedonnewprices.
Tr.
372-89;GX4,18(Summer1994increase);Tr.
461-83;GX19-20,25(December1994increase);Tr.
487-97,520-30;GX6(March1995increase).
Forexample,onMay20,1994,RhodesfaxedThompsonMizell'sJune1,1994prices(GX18),andonJune7,1994,shefaxedhimSupreme'sJuly15,1994prices(GX4).
Tr.
373,379.
Ofparticularnoteonpage1ofGX4,isahand-writtenchangefrom$1,500to$2,000asthecut-offpointforprepaidfreight.
ThechangewasmadebyThompsontomatchMizell's$2,000cut-offpointonGX18thatRhodeshadfaxedhertwoweeksearlier.
Tr.
386,420.
Moreover,TomasinaMillerpreparedSupreme'sJuly1994pricesatthesametimethatRhodeshadfaxedhispricesheettoThompson.
Tr.
3341-42.
MilleradmittedthatSupreme'sandMizell'slastcolumnprices(over50,000squarefeet)werethe"sameorsimilar"(Tr.
3351-52),includingMiller'shandwrittenchangeonherdraft(DX10710)loweringthepriceforstandarddutypoly-scrim-Kraftfrom$239to$234,whichwasMizell'sprice.
Tr.
3344-45.
RhodestestifiedsimilarlyabouttheDecember1994increase.
HehadMizell'ssouthernpricesheetforNovember15,1994(GX42O)"readytogo"inSeptember1994.
Tr.
465-66.
However,whenThompsonfaxedhimSupreme'sDecember1994pricelistonSeptember27,1994,withconsiderablylowerprices13RhodesalsoidentifiedGX17asTherm-All'sJuly1994pricesheetthatBaysenthimtouseinpreparingMizell'snorthernprices(Tr.
407-08),andGX25asBay'sDecember1994northernpricesthatSmigelfaxedhim.
Tr.
461-62,480-83.
12(GX19),heloweredMizell'sprices"tobringtheminlinewithTula'ssheet.
"Tr.
476.
RhodesalsomadeMizell'sfinalpricesheet(GX20)effectiveDecember15,1994,tomatchSupreme'sandTherm-All'seffectivedate.
Tr.
466-77.
Similarly,onMarch20,1995,RhodesmadenotesonaMizellpricesheetofhisphoneconversationwithMarkEngebretsonofTherm-All,includingEngebretson'sfaxnumber,andthat"perMarkE.
""Therm-Allwasraisingprices$55"on5-inchunfacedinsulation.
Tr.
1089,1520-22;GX27A-B&E,GX28;DX11501.
Engebretson'sphonerecordsforMarch20,1995showseveralphonecallsandfaxesbetweenEngebretson'sresidentialofficeandRhodes'officeinAtlanta,Georgia.
13GX10Eat8-9.
Despitesomecheating,theconspiracywaslargelysuccessful:forthefirsttimepricesandprofitsroseinthemarketplace.
Rhodesexplainedthatthegoaloftheagreement"wastoraisetheprices"andthatthey"wereabletoachievethat.
.
.
.
So,bottomline,[they]mademoremoney,"makingtheagreement"verysuccessful.
"Tr.
250,1081-82.
EvenSmigeladmittedthatin1993,atleast90percentofTherm-All'ssaleshaddiscountsofmorethan5percent,andtheyear13"endedupbybeingabreak-evenyear.
"Tr.
2773-74.
Butin1994and1995,"thepricesheetswerebeingfollowedalotmore,"Therm-Allwas"doingalotbetterthan.
.
.
in1993,"andonly44percentofTherm-All'ssaleshaddiscountsofmorethan5percent.
Tr.
2773-76.
Indeed,priceswereraisedsomuchthatitdidnotmatterforaparticularsalewhetherthelaminatorsjumpedoneormorebracketsorevenpricedalittlebelowthesheetaltogether,becausetheystillwouldmakemoreprofitthantheyhadmadebeforethepriceincrease.
Tr.
250-56,270-73;accord2776(Smigeladmittingthatifasalesmanjumpedabracketonthe1994pricesheetsprofitswouldstillbe"decent").
Thiswasso,Rhodesexplained,becauseprofitmarginsin1993weregenerallynobetterthan8to15percent,butin1994and1995evenpricesinthelowestbracketscouldproducea20percentprofit.
Tr.
1082.
EngebretsonfromTherm-AlladmittedthatthelastbracketonthepricesheetswasRhodes'"barometer.
"Tr.
1399.
OtherwitnessescorroboratedRhodes'testimonythatprofitsrosein1994and1995.
Tr.
1122,1134(1994prices"considerably"higherthanin1993),1144-45,1274-75.
TheconspiracyultimatelywasfoiledbyBay'sHoustondivisionmanager,JanneSmith.
ThroughherdailyconversationswithMaloof,Smithfoundoutabout14Forexample,inMay1994,MaloofwasinSmith'sofficetalkingonthephonewithRhodesaboutthesummer1994increaseinthesouthernpricesforwhitevinyl,usingaMizelldraftpricesheet(GX21)asaguide.
Tr.
2256-57.
WhenhehunguphetoldSmithtomakeacopyofMizell'sprices"becausethat'swhere[Bay's]pricesweregoingtobe,"andthat"hewasgoingtocallTula.
.
.
andtellherthesewerethepricesforthenewpriceincrease.
"Tr.
2257-58.
AlthoughSupremedidnotcompetewithBayinTexas,itdidcompeteintherestofMaloof'ssouthernarea(Tr.
2330),andonmanyoccasionsMalooftoldSmiththathehadtalkedwith"Tula"andthat"everythingwasgoingokayoverthere.
"Tr.
2259-60.
14theconspiracy"alittleatatime.
"14Tr.
2251-52.
BecomingconcernedthatwhatMaloofwasdoing"wasillegalandthat[she]mightgetintosomekindoftrouble,"Smithdecidedtocontactfederalauthorities.
Tr.
2264-65,2313.
Smithsubsequentlyagreedtocooperatewiththegovernment'sinvestigation,includingtapingsomeofherconversationswithMaloofinAprilandMay1995.
Tr.
2314-15,2320-46;GX12A-D&13A-D.
Thetapesshowthattheconspiracytookpriceoutofthebuyer'sdecisionbymakingonelaminator'sprice"thesamepriceaseverybodyelse.
"Tr.
2324-25;GX13Aat18-20("[w]eequalizedthepricestomakeitsimple");accordGX13Bat9("thepricesareset").
ThetapesalsoshowthatwhenBaylostCrownMetalBuilding'sbusinesstoSupreme,"thepricing[was]thesame.
So,thepricing[was]notthereason[Bay]losttheirbusiness.
"Tr.
2335;GX13Bat23.
TheyfurthershowthatMaloofwas"alwaystryingtofindout.
.
.
ifanybody'sdoinganythingoffthepricesheetsohecancallthemandconfrontthem15GX13BisatapeofaMay4,1995conversationofSmithwarningMaloofthatoneofhersalesmenwasgoingtobebiddingajobbelowthepricesheetand,therefore,thatRhodesmightcallhimtocomplain.
Tr.
2327-28;GX13Bat5-6,23-24.
MaloofrespondedthatSmith"wasdoingthesamethingthatSupremehaddoneandthathehadtoldthemthey'dbettercontroltheirpeople.
"Tr.
2330-31;GX13Bat5-6.
15aboutit,"because"Tula,andWallyand.
.
.
BobSmigel[and]Zupon[ofCGI].
.
.
let[Bay]knowwhentheyfindonelittlething[Bay]didwrong.
"Tr.
2336-37;GX13Bat23.
15TheconspiracycontinuedinfullforceuntilthegovernmentservedsubpoenasonJune22,1995(Tr.
188,2349,4772),afterwhich"[t]hingsstartedreturningtohowtheywerebeforeandthingsstartedbecomingcompetitiveagain.
"Tr.
2352;accordTr.
2115(Supreme'spricesheetsbecameonly"guidelines"inthesummerof1995).
Indeed,sincethenpriceshave"droppeddramatically"fromtheDecember1994pricesheetlevelsthatwereineffectatthattime.
Tr.
1128.
SUMMARYOFARGUMENTMostofappellants'argumentsaresimplyvariationsofasingletheme:theevidencemustbeinsufficienttosupportthejury'sdeterminationthattheyknowinglyparticipatedinthesingleconspiracychargedintheindictmentwithintheperiodofthestatuteoflimitationsbecausethejuryacquittedSmigelandThompson.
Theacquittals,however,areirrelevant.
Infact,asthedistrictcourtdeterminedinitspost-trialopinion,theevidenceismorethansufficienttosupportthejury'sguilty16verdicts.
1.
Appellants'attackonthesufficiencyoftheevidenceisbottomedontheirerroneousassumptionthatRhodes'testimonymustbeignoredbecauseofthejury'sacquittals.
TheSupremeCourt,however,rejectedthatnotionmorethan70yearsago.
Moreover,severalwitnessesimplicatedappellantsinthechargedconspiracy,includingtheirownemployees.
AndboththetestimonyofthosewitnessesandRhodes'testimonyiscorroboratedbytheevidence.
Thus,theevidenceismorethansufficienttosupportthejury'sguiltyverdicts.
Similarly,appellants'statuteoflimitationsdefenseisbasedontheirlegallyerroneousbeliefthat,inthispricefixingcase,thegovernmentwasrequiredtoproveanovertactinfurtheranceoftheconspiracywithinthelimitationsperiod.
Becausepricefixingisperseillegal,thegovernment'sonlyburdenwastoshowthattheconspiracywasstillinexistenceduringtheperiodofthestatuteoflimitations.
Infact,theevidenceestablishesthattheconspiracycontinuedtooperatewithinthelimitationsperiodandthattheconspirators,includingappellants,madesalesatpricesfixedbytheiragreementduringthatstatutoryperiod.
Finally,theevidencefullyestablishesthesinglenationwideconspiracychargedintheindictment.
Theconspiratorssharedthecommongoalofraisingpricesandcooperatedwitheachotherwhethertheysoldinsulationregionallyor17nationwide.
Thus,Therm-All'sclaimofaprejudicialvarianceismeritless.
2.
Thecourtproperlyinstructedthejury.
Thecourt'sinstructionsadequatelycoveredTherm-All'stheorythatpricingwascompetitive,andalloweddefensecounseltoarguethattheevidencesupportedthattheory.
Moreover,Therm-All'sproposedinstructionwasflawedbecauseitimproperlycharacterizedtheevidence.
Finally,thisCourtlongagorejectedtheclaimthataspecificintentinstructionisrequiredinaperseillegalpricefixingcase.
3.
Therm-All'sclaimthatitwasprejudicedbythegovernment'sinadvertentdiscoveryviolationisspecious.
Therm-Allneverpresenteditsprejudiceclaimtothetrialcourt,soitisreviewedforplainerror.
AndbecauseTherm-All'sabsenceoftelephonecontactargumentdoesnotrefutethedirectevidenceofitsparticipationintheconspiracy,noplainerroroccurred.
4.
Nothingthegovernmentsaidduringclosingargumentprejudicedtheappellants.
Indeed,virtuallyeverythingappellantscomplainofhereissupportedbytherecord.
Andwhenthecourtwasgiventheopportunitytodosobywayofanobjection,itimmediatelyremediedanypotentialerrorwithacautionaryinstruction.
Moreover,giventhesubstantialevidenceofguiltandthespecificityofthecourt'soverallinstructions,thecourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionwhenitrejectedappellants'attackontheprosecutor'sremarks.
18ARGUMENTI.
SUFFICIENTEVIDENCESUPPORTSTHEJURY'SVERDICTSA.
StandardofReviewThisCourtreviewsdenovothedenialofappellants'motionsforacquittal.
UnitedStatesv.
Medina,161F.
3d867,872(5thCir.
2002).
Inreviewingthesufficiencyoftheevidence,theCourtmustupholdtheverdictsifthereissubstantialevidence,viewedinthelightmostfavorabletothegovernment,tosustainthejury'sdecision.
Glasserv.
UnitedStates,315U.
S.
60,80(1942);Medina,161F.
3dat872;UnitedStatesv.
Lopez,74F.
3d575,577(5thCir.
1996).
Thetestiswhether"arationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundthattheevidenceestablishedtheessentialelementsoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.
"Lopez,74F.
3dat577;accordUnitedStatesv.
Ibarra,286F.
3d795,797(5thCir.
2002).
Whenviewingtheevidence,thegovernmentmustbegiventhebenefitofallreasonableinferences.
Glasser,315U.
S.
at80;Ibarra,286F.
3dat797;Lopez,74F.
3dat577.
Andwhen,ashere,thereisdirectevidencefromamemberoftheconspiracy,"[a]slongasitisnotfactuallyinsubstantialorincredible,theuncorroboratedtestimonyofaco-conspirator,evenonewhohasagreedtocooperatewiththegovernmentinexchangefornon-prosecutionorleniency,maybeconstitutionallysufficienttoconvict.
"UnitedStatesv.
Herrera,289F.
3d311,318(5thCir.
2002);accordUnitedStatesv.
19Trevino,556F.
2d1265,1268-69(5thCir.
1977).
Additionally,aconspiracymaybeprovedwhollybycircumstantialevidence,e.
g.
,UnitedStatesv.
Leal,74F.
3d600,606(5thCir.
1996);UnitedStatesv.
Rodriguez-Mireles,896F.
2d890,892(5thCir.
1990),whichistobetreatednodifferentlythananyotherevidence.
Hollandv.
UnitedStates,348U.
S.
121,139-40(1954);UnitedStatesv.
Scott,678F.
2d606,609-10(5thCir.
1982).
Thejuryisthesolejudgeofcredibility,andtheevidenceneednotexcludeeveryreasonablehypothesisexceptthatofguilt.
Lopez,74F.
3dat577;UnitedStatesv.
Salazar,66F.
3d723,728(5thCir.
1995).
Thus,thereviewingcourtmaynotweightheevidenceorsubstituteitscredibilityassessmentsforthoseofthejury.
Lopez,74F.
3dat577-78(courtmustacceptjury'scredibilitydeterminationsunless"testimonyisincredibleorpatentlyunbelievable");UnitedStatesv.
Pena-Rodriguez,110F.
3d1120,1123(5thCir.
1997)(tobeincrediblewitness'testimonymustbefactuallyimpossible).
Finally,ifadefendanttestifiesinacriminalcase,itis"wellwithin[thejury's]province"todisbelievehimandrejecthisexplanation.
Edmondv.
Collins,8F.
3d290,294n.
10(5thCir.
1993).
Infact,thejurymayviewadefendant'sfalsestatementassubstantiveevidenceof"aconsciousnessofguilt.
"UnitedStatesv.
Colmenares-Hernandez,659F.
2d39,42(5thCir.
1981).
20B.
Therm-AllAndSupremeEngagedInALong-TermPriceFixingConspiracy1.
ConsistencyInTheJury'sVerdictsIsNotRequiredAppellants'attackonthesufficiencyoftheevidenceisbottomedontheirerroneousbeliefthatbecause"thejuryfoundtheevidenceinsufficienttoprovetheguiltofMs.
Thompson[andSmigel],ipsofacto,theevidenceagainstSupreme[andTherm-All]mustbeinsufficientaswell.
"SupremeBr.
27;Therm-AllBr.
50.
TheerrorintheirargumentisthattheacquittalofSmigelandThompson"doesnotshowthat[thejurywas]notconvincedof[their]guilt.
"Dunnv.
UnitedStates,284U.
S.
390,393(1932).
AstheCourtexplainedinUnitedStatesv.
Powell,469U.
S.
57(1984),appellants'"argumentnecessarilyassumesthattheacquittal[ofSmigelandThompson]wasproper–theonethejury'reallymeant.
'This,ofcourse,isnotnecessarilycorrect;allweknowisthattheverdictsareinconsistent.
"469U.
S.
at68(emphasisadded).
Becauseacquittalsarenottheequivalentofafactualfindingofinnocence,appellantsarewrongthattheacquittalsnecessarilymeanthattheevidenceagainstSmigelandThompsonwasinsufficient.
Rather,thejurymayhavecorrectlydecidedthatthecorporatedefendantswereguilty,but"thenthroughmistake,compromise,orlenityarrivedataninconsistentconclusion"withrespectto16Indeed,defensecounselspecificallyandrepeatedlyinformedthejurythatanindividual'sconvictioninthiscase"carriesjail,penitentiarytime.
"Tr.
78,accordTr.
49,72,821,5958.
21SmigelandThompson.
16Id.
at57;accordid.
at63(juriespossess"'theunreviewablepower.
.
.
toreturnaverdictofnotguiltyforimpermissiblereasons'")(quotingHarrisv.
Rivera,454U.
S.
339,345-46(1981));UnitedStatesv.
Gordon,780F.
2d1165,1176(5thCir.
1986)(same).
Norwouldtheresultbedifferentif,asappellantsalsoerroneouslyclaim,thejuryacquitted"theonlylinktotheDefendantcorporation[s].
"Therm-AllBr.
50;accordSupremeBr.
27-28.
Indeed,thisCourtsettledthatveryissueinUnitedStatesv.
CargoServiceStations,Inc.
,657F.
2d676(5thCir.
1981),whenitrejectedthecorporate"appellants[']assert[ion]thattheyareentitledtoajudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdictsinceeverypersonwhocouldhaveactedastheiragenthasbeenacquittedofcriminalwrongdoing.
"657F.
2dat684-85(emphasisadded)(citingDunn,supra,andUnitedStatesv.
Dotterweich,320U.
S.
277,279(1943)).
BecausetheCourtinPowellreaffirmedDunnandspecificallyrefusedtorecognizeexceptionstotheruleannouncedinthatcase,469U.
S.
at61-62,69,Supreme'sinvitation(Br.
29)forthisCourtto"revisit"CargoServicesmustberejected.
Appellantsare"affordedprotectionagainstjuryirrationalityorerrorbytheindependentreviewofthesufficiencyoftheevidence.
"Powell,469U.
S.
at67.
But17AsTherm-Allconcedes(Br.
49),therecordcontains"direct"evidenceofTherm-All'sandSupreme'sparticipationintheconspiracy.
Sincethisprosecutionisnotbasedentirelyoncircumstantialevidence,casesinwhichthereis"virtuallyequalcircumstantialevidenceofincriminationandexoneration,"UnitedStatesv.
Reveles,190F.
3d678,686(5thCir.
1999),orcasesinwhich"foreveryinferenceofguiltthatmaybedrawnfromtheevidence,thereisanequalandoppositebenigninferencetobedrawn,"UnitedStatesv.
Ortega-Reyna,148F.
3d540,545(5thCir.
1998)(Therm-AllBr.
48-49,51;SupremeBr.
29-30),areirrelevant.
CompareTrevino,556F.
2dat1268.
18Therm-Alliswrongthat"RhodestestifiedhedidnotrecallwherehehadgottenTherm-All'sfirstpricelist.
"Br.
54.
Rhodestestifiedthatalthoughhecould22thatreviewmust"beindependentofthejury'sdetermination"toacquitSmigelandThompson.
Id.
Thus,thisCourtmustreviewalltheevidence,includingRhodes'testimony,inthelightmostfavorabletothegovernment,andresolveanyconflictsinthetestimonyinawayconsistentwiththeguiltyverdicts.
17Seeid.
;Dunn,284U.
S.
at392-93.
Whenreviewedunderthatcorrectstandard,theevidenceismorethansufficienttosupportthejury'sguiltyverdicts.
2.
Therm-AllTherecordoverwhelminglyestablishesTherm-All'sdirectandcontinuingparticipationintheconspiracy,fromitsearliestdaystoitslast.
SmigelcalledRhodestorecruithimintotheconspiracy–whichhedidsuccessfully–afterSmigelhadalreadyagreedwithBay'sMalooftoraiseandmaintainprices.
Tr.
176-78.
Indeed,itwasTherm-All'sprices(GX14)thatRhodesmatchedinJanuary1994whenhedevelopedMizell'sfirst-evernorthernpricesheet(GX1).
18Tr.
207-08,notremembertheprecisewayinwhichhereceivedGX14,heunequivocallyreceivedit"fromSmigelorsomeoneinhisoffice.
"Tr.
207-08,981-82(emphasisadded).
19Similarly,Rhodes'notesonGX2showingSmigel'snameandfaxnumber,corroboratehistestimonythatwhenhecalledSmigeltocomplainaboutTherm-All'slowpricestoSteelStructures,SmigelaskedRhodestofaxhimTherm-All'spricing.
Seenote10,supra.
20EngebretsontestifiedthatRhodeswastheonlypersonhewouldcallatMizell.
Tr.
1435.
21Forexample,onMay11,1994,thedayafterTherm-AllannounceditsJuly1994priceincrease,Engebretsontalkedtoheadquartersfor16minutesthen23214,981-82.
Rhodes'notesonGX27A,that"perMarkE.
"on"3/20/95"Therm-Allwasraisingprices"$55"on5-inchunfacedinsulation,reflecthistelephoneconversationwithEngebretsonthatday.
19Tr.
1520-25;GX27B.
Engebretson'sphonerecordsconfirmthathemadeaneleven-minutecalltoRhodesthatmorning,thatafewminuteslaterRhodescalledhimbackonanotherfour-minutecall,whichwasthenfollowedbyfaxesbetweenthetwoindividuals.
20Tr.
1520-25;GX10Eat8-9.
Engebretson'sphonerecordsstronglycorroborateRhodes'testimonythathespokewithEngebretsonabouttheconspiracy(Tr.
330-31,490,522-24)byshowingthatonseveraloccasionswhenEngebretsonspokewithRhodes(orBay),thosecallswereimmediatelyprecededand/orfollowedbycallsbetweenEngebretsonandTherm-All's"headquarters.
"21Eg.
,Tr.
1407-08,1435-37,1440,1448-56,1465-66.
RhodesimmediatelycalledRhodes.
Tr.
1448-56.
Similarly,onJune1,1994,thedayBayannounceditspriceincrease,afterEngebretsontalkedwithBay'sAtlantaplantmanager,GuyYoung,for28minutes,heimmediatelycalledheadquarters.
Tr.
1465-66,2215.
22Forexample,whenMinglequestionedRhodesaboutthecorrectnessofMizell'sFebruary1994pricesheet,RhodescomparedthosepricestoTherm-All's,Bay'sandCGI'spricesheets–nottoanyMizellcostinformation.
Tr.
1797-1800.
24evensentEngebretsonMizellpricesheetssothatTherm-Allcould"usethesamepricesas[Mizell].
"Tr.
522-23;GX28.
RhodesalsocalledEngebretsontocomplainwhenTherm-AllsalesmanDeanAnderson"wasalittlebitoffthepricesheetorhadjumpedabracket.
"Tr.
523-24.
Rhodesdidso"[b]ecauseifwehadmadetheagreementswithTherm-All,thentheyneededtobesellingitonthepricesheet.
"Id.
Infact,EngebretsonadmittedthathecalledRhodes"tocomplain.
.
.
tokindofcallhimonthecarpet"whenDeanAndersonreportedtoEngebretsonthatMizellhadquotedlow.
Tr.
1399-1401.
AndEngebretsonadmittedthathediscussedatleastonecustomer'sbidwithRogerFerryatCGI.
Tr.
1366,1468-72.
Asnotedpreviously,RhodesandMinglebothtestifiedthatSmigelcalledRhodesseveraltimestocomplainaboutMingle'spricing.
Seepp.
8-9,supra.
Infact,Therm-All'sPennsylvaniaplantmanagercalledRhodesinFebruary1995withthesamecomplaint.
Tr.
537-39.
Giventhetotalityofthisevidence,itisnotsurprisingthatTherm-All'spricelistsweresosimilartoMizell's,asevenSmigeladmitted.
22Seenote7,supra.
Indeed,pricingdirectlyfromthosepricesheets23GX40AisaSupreme"PriceGuide"withan"EffectiveDate[of]2-1-94"andcontainspricesvirtuallyidenticaltoBay'sandMizell's.
SupremeassertsthatGX40Aismerelya"draft"thatwas"neverused.
"Br.
9.
Thejury,however,wasfreetodrawitsowninferencesfromthedocument.
25resultedinidenticalquotestoAmericanBuildingSystemsinMay1995byTherm-All,MizellandCGI.
Tr.
1826-27;GX41H,GX43K,GX87.
Seepp.
37-38,infra.
Thus,theevidenceismorethansufficienttosupportthejury'sguiltyverdictwithrespecttoTherm-All.
3.
SupremeSeveralwitnessesimplicatedSupremeintheconspiracy.
RhodesexplainedthatbothheandMaloofspokewithThompsoninJanuary1994whensheagreedtoraiseSupreme'sprices.
Tr.
179-85.
Indeed,thestrikingsimilarityintheFebruary1994Supreme(GX40A),Mizell(GX42B)andBay(GX43B)pricesfor3-inchwhitevinylbearsthisout.
23Additionally,RhodessentSupremehisJune1994pricesheet(GX18)onMay20,1994,tohelpSupremeinsettingitsincrease.
Tr.
373.
Miller,whowaspreparingSupreme'spriceguideatthatexacttime(Tr.
3341-42),changedthepriceforstandarddutypoly-scrim-Kraftfrom$239to$234inherhandwrittendraft(DX10710)tomatchMizell'spriceonGX18.
AndwhenThompsonfaxedSupreme'sJulypricesheettoRhodesonJune7,1994(GX4),itcontainedahandwrittenchangeinthe26freightchargefrom$1,500to$2,000tomatchMizell'spriceonGX18.
Tr.
386,420.
Similarly,acomparisonofMizell'sproposedNovember15,1994pricesheet(GX42O),withSupreme'sDecember1994sheet(GX19)andMizell'sfinalDecember1994sheet(GX20),supportsRhodes'testimonythathehadtheNovemberprices"readytogo"inSeptember1994whenThompsonfaxedhimSupreme'slowerpricesonSeptember27,1994.
Tr.
465-66.
RhodesthereafterloweredMizell'sprices"tobringtheminlinewithTula'ssheet,"andchangedMizell'seffectivedatetoDecember15,1994,tomatchSupreme'sandTherm-All'seffectivedate.
Tr.
466-77.
NilsenwasinstructedtosticktothepricesheetsbecauseofMizell'sagreementwith"MissTula.
"Tr.
1123,1130-31.
AndimmediatelyafterRhodescalledNilsenandtoldhimto"standbythefaxmachine"because"she"wassendinghimapricesheet,NilsenreceivedSupreme'spricesheetwithaSupremefaxheader.
Tr.
1140-41.
WhenNilsencomparedSupreme'spricestoMizell's,asRhodesinstructed,hefoundtheprices"verysimilar.
"Tr.
1141.
NilsenalsoreportedtoRhodesonseveraloccasionswhenSupremepricedbelowtheagreement,andafterRhodeshad"discussedit"with"her,"hewouldtellNilsen"[i]twon'thappenagain.
"Tr.
1132-34.
MirandaalsoconfirmedthatThompsondiscussedpricingwithRhodes.
HeexplainedthatafterhereportedasuspectedlowMizellbidtoThompson,shecalled24Thus,Supreme'ssuggestionthatit"wasworkingtoobtainallofRibRoof'sbusiness.
.
.
byofferingit'nationwide'pricing"(Br.
40-41)isnotpersuasive.
27himbacktosaythatshehadconfirmedthrough"Wally"thatMizell'spricewasnotlowerthanSupreme's.
Tr.
2001.
MirandaalsoadmittedthatafterThompsongavehimaMizellpricesheet(GX6)andinstructedhimto"stick"toit,heplaceditright"upfront"inhispricebookandsubsequently"usedthisMizellpricingas[his]ownforafewjobsatleast.
"Tr.
2005-06.
Seep.
36,infra.
Rhodes'ownnotesconfirmhispricingdiscussionswithThompson.
E.
g.
,GX9A("go$248perTula");seeTr.
287-88.
AfterRibRoofhadchangedthespecificationsforitsHesperia,Californiaproject,Rhodesmadehimselfanoteto"requote$198"andto"TellTula.
"Tr.
288-89;GX9A.
Subsequently,Mizellpreparedabidfor$198onFebruary9,1994(GX60E),andSupremepreparedabidfor$197onFebruary11,1994(GX60B),24thesamedaya13-minutephonecallbetweenMizellandSupremetookplace.
GX10Aat14.
Similarly,Smith'stestimonythatMalooftalkedpriceswithThompson(Tr.
2257-58,2260,2306)wascorroboratedbyMaloof'staperecordedconversations.
CompareTr.
2330-31withGX13Bat5-6,andTr.
2336-37withGX13Bat23.
Insum,aswithTherm-All,theevidenceismorethansufficienttosupportthejury'sguiltyverdictwithrespecttoSupreme.
284.
Appellants'OtherArgumentsGoToTheWeight–AndNotTheSufficiency–OfTheEvidenceAstheyunsuccessfullyarguedtothejuryandintheirpost-trialmotionsforacquittal,appellantsagainclaimthatthereareseveralplausibleexplanationsastowhytheiractionswereatleastasconsistent,ifnotmoreconsistent,withcompetitiveconductaswithpricefixing.
Theypointtodifferencesinthestructureandspecificpricesinthemanypricesheets,thefactthatmanysalesweremadebelowtheapplicablepricesheetlevel,theireconomists'assessmentofthemarketconditionsfortheir"commodity"products,legitimatereasonsforphonecallsbetweencompetitors,andthefactthatonoccasionlaminatorsreceivedcompetitors'pricesheetsfrommutualcustomers.
Therm-AllBr.
51-57;SupremeBr.
29-43.
Thedistrictcourt,however,rejectedeachofthesecontentions,R.
330at8-21,explainingthatappellants'"argumentslargelyrelatetotheweightoftheGovernment'scase,notitslegalsufficiency.
"Id.
at17.
Indeed,thecourtdid"notagreethattheevidence,whenconstruedinthelightmostfavorabletotheguiltyverdict,isasconsistentwithguiltasinnocence,"because"[a]ttheveryleast,Rhodes'testimony.
.
.
defeats[appellants']contention.
"Id.
at18.
Appellants'claimthattherewasnoshowingthatthey"providedanydraftsof[their].
.
.
priceguidestoanycompetitor"provesnothing.
SupremeBr.
34;Therm-AllBr.
54.
Theevidenceshowsthat,attheveryleast,MizellconformeditsFebruary25TheevidenceconcerningSupreme'sJuly1994pricesalsorefutesSupreme'sclaim(Br.
34)that"Supreme'spriceguideswerecreatedindependentlybyTomasinaMiller.
.
.
withoutanyreferencetoanypricesheetofacompetitor.
"Seepp.
11,25-26,supra.
26AlthoughGX6isdatedDecember15,1994,acomparisonofthe"unfaced"pricesonofpage2ofGX6andonpage2ofGX42L–anearlierversionofMizell'sDecember15,1994westernpricesheet–showssubstantialchangesweremadetothoseprices.
Tr.
3565-66.
Infact,thosechangescorrespondinlargeparttothehandwrittennotesthatRhodesmadeonGX27AinMarch1995.
291994northernpricesheettoTherm-All's(p.
6,supra),SupremeconformeditsJuly1994pricesheettoMizell's(p.
11,supra),25andMizellconformeditsDecember1994pricestoSupreme's(pp.
11-12,supra).
Supreme'sclaimthatGX6(theMarch1995versionofMizell'sDecember15,1994westernpricesheet)wasthreemonthsoldandalreadyinitspossessionforseveralweekspriortoThompsonreceivingitfromRhodesattheirMarch29,1995breakfastmeeting(Br.
39),doesnotexplainwhyThompsontoldMirandato"stick"tothosepriceswhenshegavehimGX6,andwhyheputit"upfront"inhispricebookandusedthoseMizell'spricesashisown.
26Tr.
2005-06.
Seep.
36,infra.
Appellants'relianceondifferencesinpricesheetsandonnon-conformingsalesalsoprovesnothing.
Pricefixingconspiraciesarerarely,ifever,fullysuccessfulallofthetime,andcheatingbyco-conspiratorsisnotuncommon.
E.
g.
,UnitedStatesv.
Andreas,216F.
3d645,679(7thCir.
2000);UnitedStatesv.
MisleBus&Equip.
Co.
,27Forexample,whendiscussingacallfromTherm-All'sPennsylvaniaplantmanagercomplainingaboutaMinglebid,Rhodestestifiedthathe"didnotknowatthetimeuntil[he]foundoutlater"thatTherm-Allalsosubmittedabid.
Tr.
538-39.
30967F.
2d1227,1231(8thCir.
1992).
Thus,whilesomesalesdidnotconformexactlytothepricesheets,thejurywasfreetoconcludethattheevidenceasawholeestablishedthepricefixingagreementchargedintheindictment.
Indeed,theevidenceshowedthattheconspiratorswerenotconcernedwithprecisepricingunlesstheyknewtheywere"headtohead"withaco-conspirator.
E.
g.
,Tr.
1132.
Appellants'argumentfailstoaccountforthisfact.
Asthedistrictcourtcorrectlynoted:"[i]tisunclearthattheconspiratorsbidagainsteachotheronallorevenmostofthejobstheyperformed.
Iftheydidnotbidagainsteachother,itwaspossiblethattheconspiratorwouldbeunawareofthediscountinginwhichitscompetitorwasengaged.
"27R.
330at15n.
17.
Moreover,thefactthattheconspiratorsagreedonthepricestheyputontheirpricelistsissufficienttoestablishaShermanActviolationevenifcustomersroutinelypaidpricesdiscountedfromthoselistedprices.
Forexample,inPlymouthDealersAss'nofNorthernCalif.
v.
UnitedStates,279F.
2d128(9thCir.
1960),theNinthCircuitheld:ThecompetitionbetweenthePlymouthdealersandthefactthatthedealersusedthefixeduniformlistpriceinmost31instancesonlyasastartingpoint,isofnoconsequence.
Itwasanagreedstartingpoint;ithadbeenagreeduponbetweencompetitors;itwasinsomeinstancesintherecordrespectedandfollowed,ithadtodowith,andhaditseffectupon,price.
ThefactthatthereexistedcompetitionofotherkindsbetweenvariousPlymouthdealers,orthattheycutpricesinbiddingagainsteachother,isirrelevant.
279F.
2dat132-33(footnoteomitted).
Thepricesheetsheresimilarly"hadtodowith,andhad[their]effectupon,price.
"Indeed,inPlymouthDealers,ashere,thelistpricewasartificiallyraised"sothattheultimatepercentageofgrossprofitoverthe[dealers']factorypricecouldbehigher.
"Id.
Thespecificgoaloftheconspiracywastoeliminatetheviciouscompetitioninthemarketplace;i.
e.
,to"getthepricingupintheindustryandmakemoremoney.
"Tr.
185-86;seeR.
330at9(agreementallowedtheconspiratorstosellatartificiallyinflatedprices"withoutseriousconcernthatcompetitorswouldpublishandroutinelyacceptsignificantlylowerprofitmargins")(emphasisinoriginal).
Rhodeswasnottheonlywitnesstotestifythattheconspirators"wereabletoachievethat,"thatthey"mademoremoney.
"Tr.
250.
EvenSmigeladmittedthatin1995,afterallocationhadended,Therm-Allstillwasfollowingthepricesheets"alotmore"and"doingalotbetterthan.
.
.
in1993.
"Tr.
2773-76.
AsRhodesexplained,thepricesonthepricesheetsweresohighthat,asinPlymouthDealers,solongastheconspiratorspricedonthesheet,orevenalittle32belowit,theywouldstillmakealargerprofitthanwhentheywerecompeting.
Seep.
13,supra.
Ifappellantswerecorrectthattherewasnopricefixingagreement,thenattheveryleastthewide-spreadavailabilityofinsulationbytheendof1994andtheendofallocation"shouldhaverevivedactivecompetition.
But,itdidnotappeartodosountilthegrandjurysubpoenaswereserved.
"R.
330at19-20.
Indeed,theevidenceshowsthateventhoughtheallocationdidnotaffectCaliforniasalesafterSeptember1994,theconspiratorswerestillabletoraisepricesinDecember1994andsellatthosehigherprices.
Tr.
1120-21,1128-29.
AndtheconspiratorswerestillpricingdirectlyfromtheiragreeduponpricesheetsinthemiddleofJune1995,longafterallocationhadended.
Seep.
38&n.
30,infra.
Insum,thedistrictcourtwascorrectthat"[t]hejuryhadsufficientdirectandcircumstantialevidencetofindDefendantsTherm-AllandSupremeguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt,"andthatit"simply"cannotbesaid"asamatteroflawthatthevoluminousevidenceintherecordwasinsufficienttosupporttheseverdicts.
"R.
330at20-21.
Finally,Supremearguesalternativelythatitshouldbegrantedanewtrialbecausetheverdictisagainsttheweightoftheevidence.
Br.
59.
Thedistrictcourtrejectedthisclaimnotingthat"[i]tdoesnotcontravenetheinterestsofjusticeto33allowtheseconvictionstostand.
"R.
330at34-35.
ThisCourtreviewsthedistrictcourt'sdenialofanewtrialforanabuseofdiscretion.
E.
g.
UnitedStatesv.
Robertson,110F.
3d,1113,1118(5thCir.
1997).
Thequestionisnotwhethersomeotherresultismorereasonable.
Rather,theevidencemustestablishthat"itwouldbeamiscarriageofjusticetolettheverdictstand.
"Id.
at1118.
GiventhevoluminousdirectandcircumstantialevidenceofSupreme'sguilt,therewasnomiscarriageofjustice.
C.
TheJuryCorrectlyDeterminedThatTheConspiracyContinuedIntoThePeriodGovernedByTheStatuteOfLimitationsTheindictmentinthiscasewasreturnedonMay31,2000.
R.
1.
Accordingly,undertherelevantstatuteoflimitations,18U.
S.
C.
§3282,thegovernmentwasrequiredtoprove,andthejurywasinstructedtofind(Tr.
5870-71),thattheconspiracycontinuedafterMay31,1995.
Appellantscontendthatthereisnoevidencetosupportthejury'sfindingthattheconspiracycontinuedpastthatdate.
Insoarguing,theyignorewell-establishedprinciplesofShermanActconspiracylawandsubstantialevidenceofrecordprovingthattheconspiracycontinuedintothelimitationsperiod.
InGrunewaldv.
UnitedStates,353U.
S.
391(1957),theCourtexplainedthat,forstatuteoflimitationspurposes,"wheresubstantiationofaconspiracychargerequiresproofofanovertact,itmustbeshownboththattheconspiracystill2815U.
S.
C.
§1providesinrelevantpart:"Every.
.
.
conspiracy,inrestraintoftradeorcommerceamongtheseveralstates.
.
.
is.
.
.
illegal.
Everypersonwhoshall.
.
.
engageinany.
.
.
conspiracyherebydeclaredtobeillegalshallbedeemedguiltyofafelony.
"34subsistedwithinthe[limitationsperiod],andthatatleastoneovertactinfurtheranceoftheconspiratorialagreementwasperformedwithinthatperiod.
"Id.
at396-97(emphasisadded).
Inapricefixingcase,however,"theprice-fixingagreementitselfconstitutesthecrime.
"UnitedStatesv.
HayterOilCo.
,51F.
3d1265,1270(6thCir.
1995)(citingUnitedStatesv.
Socony-VacuumOilCo.
,310U.
S.
150,224-25n.
59(1940));accordUnitedStatesv.
AllStarIndustries,962F.
2d465,474-75&nn.
20&21(5thCir.
1992)(inperseillegalpricefixingcase,itisnodefensethatagreementwas"neverimplemented");CargoServiceStations,657F.
2dat683-84.
Thisissobecause,asJusticeHolmesexplainednearlyacenturyago,theShermanActisbasedsolelyonthecommonlawgoverningcriminalconspiraciesanddoesnotrequireproofofanyovertact"otherthantheactofconspiring.
"Nashv.
UnitedStates,229U.
S.
373,378(1913);accordSocony-Vacuum,310U.
S.
at224-25n.
59;HayterOil,51F.
3dat1270("Proofofanovertactisnotrequiredtoestablishaviolationof§1oftheShermanAct").
28Accordingly,aShermanActconspiracy,likeacommonlawcriminalconspiracy,isa"partnershipincriminalpurposes"thatcontinues"uptothetimeofabandonmentorsuccess.
"UnitedStatesv.
Kissel,218U.
S.
601,608(1910);AllStar35Industries,962F.
2dat477.
Thus,SupremecompletelymisstatesKissel.
Br.
50.
Infact,whereacriminalconspiracycontemplatesthereceiptofillicitprofits,whetherornotthechargingstatutemakesthereceiptofthoseprofitsillegal,theconspiracycontinuesuntilthoseillegalprofitsarereceived.
UnitedStatesv.
Girard,744F.
2d1170,1172-74(5thCir.
1984);accordUnitedStatesv.
NorthernImprovementCo.
,814F.
2d540,542-43(8thCir.
1987)(antitrustbidriggingconspiracyheldtocontinueuntilpaymentreceived);UnitedStatesv.
A-A-AElectricalCo.
,788F.
2d242,244-45(4thCir.
1986)(same);UnitedStatesv.
Helmich,704F.
2d547,549(11thCir.
1983);UnitedStatesv.
Mennuti,679F.
2d1032,1035(2dCir.
1982).
Pricefixerstypicallyintendtofixpricesforaslongastheycanmaintaintheiragreementwithoutgettingcaught.
Inthiscase,forexample,Rhodestestifiedthat,giventhelong-prevailinglowpricesinthe"dogeatdogmarket"(Tr.
175-76),theobjectiveoftheconspiracywas"togetthepricingupintheindustry,tomakemoremoney"(Tr.
185-86),that"thewholedeal.
.
.
wastoraise.
.
.
ourpricesthroughtheindustry.
"Tr.
250.
SeeUnitedStatesv.
DynalectricCo.
,859F.
2d1559,1563(11thCir.
1988)(the"objectivesoftheconspiracy"dictate"theextenttowhichaconspiracycontinuesovertime").
Thus,theindictmentcharged"acontinuingagreement.
.
.
toraise,fixandmaintainprices.
"R.
1at3.
AndbothRhodesandSmithtestifiedthattheconspiracycontinuedinfullforceuntilthegovernmentissued36subpoenasonJune22,1995.
Tr.
188,2349,4772.
SeeHayterOil,51F.
3dat1267("Oncegrandjurysubpoenas.
.
.
wereissued.
.
.
pricefixing.
.
.
stopped");UnitedStatesv.
PortsmouthPavingCorp.
,694F.
2d312,319(4thCir.
1982)(same).
BothTherm-All(Br.
19)andSupreme(Br.
50-51)arewrongthatanypricefixingconspiracylastedonlyduringthefiberglassmanufacturers'allocationperiod,whichendednolaterthanMarch1995.
Noevidenceestablishesthattheconspiracywastorunconcurrentwiththeallocation.
Indeed,afterThompson'sMarch29,1995SanFranciscobreakfastmeetingwithRhodesduringwhichhegaveherMizell'spricelistforthewesternregion(GX6),Thompsonimmediately"told[Cereghino]torunouttothecarandgethispricebook"soshecouldcompareGX6toSupreme'sprices.
Tr.
3879-80.
Shethenmadeacopy"atthehotel"andgavethepricesheettoMiranda,herCaliforniasalesman.
Tr.
3880.
BecauseThompsontoldMirandato"sticktothepricesheet"whenshegaveittohim,hetookGX6backtohisofficeandputitinhispricebookright"upfront.
"Helater"usedthisMizellpricingas[his]ownforafewjobsatleast.
"Tr.
2004-06.
Similarly,NilsenwasalsoabletochargethehigherpricesinMizell'sDecember1994pricesheetnotwithstandingthefactthatbySeptember1994,monthsbeforetheallocationofficiallyended,theallocationwasnolongeraffectinghisCaliforniasales.
Tr.
1120-21,1128-29.
Tape-recordedconversationsonMay4-5,1995(GX13A-D)alsoshowthe37conspiracyoperatinginfullforce.
OnMay4,1995,SmithcalledMalooftowarnhimthatoneofhersalesmenwentbelowthepricesheetand,therefore,thatRhodesmightcallhimtocomplain.
Seenote15,supra.
Duringthatconversation,MaloofchidedSmithforpotentially"[u]psettingthebalance,"explainingthat"everybody'sgotalittleworkrightnowsoeverybody'sokay,andthepricesareset.
"GX13Bat9(emphasisadded).
Andtheconspiratorswerestillpolicingtheiragreement,asMaloofexplainedwhenhetoldSmiththathewasconstantlycheckingtoseeifSupremewasdeviatingfromitspricesheet.
Id.
at22-23;seeTr.
2336-37.
ThenextdayMalooftoldSmiththatiftheycouldgetacopyofaletterthatBritehadsenttoRedDotofferingRedDotalowprice,Maloofcould"givethattoWallyRhodes[who]told[Maloof]thathewouldcallDannyFong[ofBrite]andjumponhimwithbothdamnfeet.
"GX13Dat5,8.
OnMay15,1995,MinglesubmittedabidtoAmericanBuildingSystems(GX87)for76,000squarefeetof4-inchpoly-scrim-Kraftvinylreplacement("PSK-VR").
Tr.
1822-24.
Mingleexplainedthathetookhisbidpriceof$289directlyfromMizell'sDecember15,1994pricesheetthatwasineffectatthattime(GX43K),becauseAmericanBuildingwasoneofthecustomersthatRhodeshadpreviouslycalledhimaboutwhenSmigelcomplainedtoRhodesthatMinglewasjumpingbrackets.
Tr.
1824-27;seeTr.
1818(SmigelcomplainingaboutMingle'searlierquote29ThepriceonTherm-All'sDecember15,1994pricesheetfor76,000squarefeetof4-inchPSK-VRwasalso$289per1,000squarefeet.
GX41H.
30GX86B,whichwasadmittedintoevidenceandwaswiththejuryduringdeliberations,consistsofelevenboxescontainingthousandsofinvoicesfromBay,CGI,Mizell,SupremeandTherm-All,fromJanuary17,1994throughJune22,1995.
SeeTherm-AllBr.
15.
ThoseinvoicesaresummarizedinGX86A.
ToavoidburdeningtheCourtwiththisvoluminousexhibit,wedidnotforwardGX86BtotheCourtwiththerestofthegovernment'sexhibits.
SeeUnopposedMotionToSupplementRecordOnAppealWithGovernment'sTrialExhibits,filedApril18,2003,at1n.
1.
GX86Bincludesatleast90invoicesforsalesthatweremadebyBay,Mizell,Supreme,andTherm-All,betweenJune1,1995andJune22,1995,attheapplicablebracketpriceontheDecember1994pricesheetsthatwereineffectatthattime.
AttachedasAddendumBtothisbriefisanexampleofonesuchinvoicefromeachofthosefourcompanies.
IftheCourtsorequests,wewillprovidetheremaining86suchinvoices,ortheentireGX86B.
38toAmericanBuilding).
Onhiscopyofthebidsheet(GX87)MinglemadenotesofhissubsequentconversationwithJohnAdamsofAmericanBuilding,whotoldMinglethat"CGI,Therm-AllandMizellwereexactlyequalinpriceforthatproject"at$289,29andthattheyhad"losttoState[Laminating]by$17[per1,000squarefeet].
"Tr.
1826-27;GX87.
Andsalesinvoicesestablishthattheconspirators,includingTherm-AllandSupreme,madenumeroussalesdirectlyfromtheirpricesheetsinJune1995.
30Thus,testimony,bidsheetsandsalesinvoiceseachestablishthatinMayandJune1995,bothSupremeandTherm-Allwere,likeMizellandBay,stilltakingtheirprices"rightoffthedamnsheet.
"GX13Bat9,23;accordTr.
1827-28;GX41H&42K.
And,asthedistrictcourtfoundwhendenyingappellants'posttrialmotions,31AccordPortsmouthPaving,694F.
2dat318(same);UnitedStatesv.
Hamilton,689F.
2d1262,1268(6thCir.
1982)("whereaconspiracycontemplatesacontinuityofpurposeandacontinuedperformanceofacts,itispresumedtoexistuntiltherehasbeenanaffirmativeshowingthatithasterminated;anditsmemberscontinuetobeconspiratorsuntiltherehasbeenanaffirmativeshowingthattheyhavewithdrawn")(internalquotesomitted).
39"thereisnoevidencethatanyconspiratorabandonedthepurposesoftheconspiracypriortoreceivingtheGovernment'sJune1995subpoenas.
"R.
330at32-33.
Indeed,itwasnotuntilthesummerof1995thatSupreme'spricelistsbecame"guidelines"andwerenolongermandatory.
Tr.
2115;accordTr.
2352(itwasonlyafterthesubpoenaswereservedthat"[t]hingsstartedreturningtohowtheywerebeforeandthingsstartedbecomingcompetitiveagain").
Becauseapricefixingconspiracy"ispresumedtocontinueuntilthereisanaffirmativeshowingthatithasbeenabandoned,"HayterOil,51F.
3dat1270-71,31therecordevidencemorethansupportsthejury'sconclusionthattheconspiracyatissuecontinuedintoJune1995.
Finally,appellants'claimthatthegovernmentwasrequiredtoproveanovertactinfurtheranceoftheconspiracyduringthelimitationsperiodislegallywrong.
Therm-AllBr.
16-17;SupremeBr.
43-46.
Aswehavealreadynoted,thegovernmentisnotrequiredtoproveanovertactinaShermanActprosecution.
Socony-Vacuum,310U.
S.
at224-25n.
59;Nash,229U.
S.
at378.
ThisistrueevenwhenthedefendantclaimsthattheShermanActconspiracydidnotcontinueintothestatuteoflimitations40period.
Rather,"thegovernmentisonlyrequiredtoprovethattheagreementexistedduringthestatuteoflimitationsperiod"(HayterOil,51F.
3dat1270),andcanrelyonthepresumptionthataShermanActconspiracycontinuesuntilithasbeenabandonedoritsobjectivesaccomplished.
E.
g.
,Kissel,218U.
S.
at608;A-A-AElectrical,788F.
2dat245-46.
Aswehavealreadynoted,theevidenceinthiscaseestablishedthatthepricefixingconspiracycontinuedintothelimitationsperiod,atleastuntilthegrandjurysubpoenaswereservedonJune22,1995.
BecausetheShermanActdoesnotrequireproofofanovertact,casesinterpretingstatutesthatdorequireproofofanovertactaresimplyirrelevant.
Forexample,thecaseappellantscite,UnitedStatesv.
Manges,110F.
3d1162,1170(5thCir.
1997),wasamailfraudprosecutionpursuantto18U.
S.
C.
§371,anovertactstatute.
Butcasesinterpretingstatutesthathaveanovertactrequirement"havenobearingupon[theShermanAct].
"Nash,229U.
S.
at378;seeHydev.
UnitedStates,225U.
S.
347,359(1912)(notingdifferencebetweencommonlawconspiracystatuteliketheShermanActandstatutesthatdorequireproofofanovertact);Fiswickv.
UnitedStates,329U.
S.
211,216n.
4(1946)(same);Huffv.
UnitedStates,192F.
2d911,914-15(5thCir.
1951)(Section371'sovertactrequirement"liesbehind"rulethatstatuteoflimitationsrunsfromlastovertact).
Butevenifproofofanovertactduringtheperiodofthestatuteoflimitationsis32Thedistrictcourt'sstatuteoflimitationsjuryinstructionwasnotamodelofclarityontheissueofwhetherthegovernmentwasrequiredtoproveanovertactduringthelimitationsperiod.
Thejurywascorrectlyinstructedthat"[a]ShermanActconspiracyisdeemedtocontinueuntilallofitsobjectiveshavebeenaccomplishedortheconspiracyabandoned.
"Tr.
5871.
Buttheverynextsentencestatesthatthegovernmentisrequiredtoprove"someactionwastakenbyaconspiratorinfurtheranceoftheconspiracy"withinthelimitationsperiod.
Totheextentthissentenceisinterpretedtorequireproofofanovertact,itisinconsistentwiththepriorsentenceintheinstructionandlegallywrongasexplainedabove.
Butappellantswerenotprejudicedbyanyerrorinthisinstruction.
Evenassumingtheinstructionisinterpretedasrequiringproofofanovertact,itsimplyimposedagreaterburdenofproofonthegovernmentthat,asexplainedinfra,thegovernmentmet.
41requiredinaShermanActprosecution,overtactswereprovedinthiscase.
32Aswehavealreadynoted,bothwitnesstestimonyandsalesinvoicesestablishthatappellantsandotherconspiratorscontinuedtomakesalesfromtheirpricesheetspursuanttotheiragreementtofixpricesuntilthegrandjurysubpoenaswereservedinJune1995.
Thus,appellantscontinuedtoprofitfromtheirillegalagreementduringtheperiodgovernedbythestatuteoflimitations.
InGirard,amailfraudprosecutionrequiringproofofanovertact,thisCourtheldthata"perfectlylegal"paymenttosomeonewhohadfraudulentlyobtainedabidwasanovertactinfurtheranceoftheconspiracybecausetheconspiratorialagreementincludedobtainingthatpayment.
744F.
2dat1172-74.
Forthesamereasons,thesalesonthepricesheetsthatappellantsandtheirco-conspiratorscontinuedtomakeandprofitbyduringthestatuteoflimitationsperiodwereovertactsinfurtheranceoftheirpricefixingagreement.
SeeHelmich,33Thedistrictcourtalsocorrectlyfoundthatevidenceofpost-May1995actsofconcealmentsatisfiedthestatuteoflimitations.
R.
330at32n.
34.
42704F.
2dat549(payofftodefendantfortransmittinggovernmentsecretsconstitutedovertactandcontinuedconspiracyeventhoughstatuteunderwhichdefendantwaschargedmadethetransmittalofthesecrets,notthepayoff,thecrime);Mennuti,679F.
2dat1035(mailfraudconspiracycontinueduntileachconspiratorreceivedagreedpayoff).
Therefore,evenifappellantsarecorrectinarguingthatproofofanovertactwasrequiredinthiscase–andtheyarenot–theevidencestillfullysupportsthejury'sdeterminationthattheconspiracycontinuedintothestatuteoflimitationsperiod.
33D.
ThereWasNoPrejudicialVarianceBetweenTheIndictmentAndTheEvidenceThejuryconvictedappellantsonthesinglepricefixingconspiracychargedintheindictment,andthatconvictionisanimplicitfindingthattheevidenceprovedtheexistenceofthesinglenationwideconspiracycharged.
E.
g.
UnitedStatesv.
Morris,46F.
3d410,415(5thCir.
1995).
Thejurywasinstructedtodeterminewhetherornotthatsingleconspiracyexisted,andthatit"mustreturnanotguiltyverdict"ifitfound"thatthesinglenationalconspiracyallegedintheindictmenthasnotbeenproven.
"Tr.
5869-70.
Thejuryispresumedtohavefolloweditsinstructions.
Richardsonv.
Marsh,481U.
S.
200,206(1987).
Therm-All,however,contendsthattheevidence34Therm-AllalsocitesMorrow.
Br.
39.
43showedmultipleconspiracies.
Br.
38-43.
Thedistrictcourtcorrectlyrejectedthisclaim.
R.
330at22-25.
Toprevailonitsvarianceargument,Therm-All"mustprove(1)avariancebetweentheindictmentandtheproofattrial;and(2)thatthevarianceaffected[its]'substantialrights.
'"Morris,46F.
3dat414.
Whenreviewingtheevidencetodeterminewhetheritsupportsthejury'sfindingofasingleconspiracy,thisCourtappliesthesamestandardofreviewstatedonpages18-19,supra,thatitappliestoallofthejury'sfindingsoffact.
46F.
3dat415.
Therelevantfactorsin"countingconspiracies"aretheexistenceofacommongoal;thenatureofthescheme;andtheoverlapofparticipants.
Id.
1.
Acommongoal.
Therm-Allarguesthatanysuggestionthattheconspirators'goalwas"toraisepricesinthemetalbuildingindustry"forthepurposeof"makingmoney"is"inane.
"Br.
40.
ButinMorris,adecisionreliedonbyTherm-All(Br.
39,41,42),thisCourtexplicitlyfoundthat"[t]hecommongoalof[alltheconspirators]wastoderivepersonalgain.
.
.
toprofitfromtheillicit[activity].
"46F.
3dat415;accordUnitedStatesv.
Morrow,177F.
3d272,291(5thCir.
1999)(same).
34Inthiscase,theconspiratorshadthecommongoalofendingthefiercecompetitionthat,pre-conspiracy,wasproducing"break-even"performance,byraisingpricesandincreasing44theirprofits.
Tr.
2773-74.
Moreover,itwasSmigel,whoonlydidbusinessinthenorth,whoinitiallycomplainedaboutBay'slowprices,andwhocharacterizedthesituationasa"dog-eat-dogmarket.
"Tr.
175-76.
Thus,Therm-Allcannotconfinethegoalofeliminatingthosepricesto"a'Texas'or'southern'conspiracy.
"Br.
39.
2.
Natureofthescheme.
Therm-AllerroneouslyclaimsthatthisfactorpointstomultipleconspiraciesbecauseTherm-All'spricing"initsregionhadabsolutelynoeffectnorimpactin.
.
.
otherregions.
"Br.
41.
ButitwasBay'saggressivenessandlowpricesthatprevented1993priceincreasesfromstickingand,infact,sentthemarketintoapricewar.
Anditwasanationwideallocationbythefiberglassmanufacturersthatprovidedtheimpetusfortheconspiratorstofixpricesinallmarkets.
Infact,withoutthecontinuouscooperationofalloftheconspiratorswhethertheysoldnationwidelikeBayorinaregionlikeTherm-All,theconspiracywouldhavecollapsedaspricesandprofitmarginsfell.
Morris,46F.
3dat415-16(continuouscooperationisevidenceofasingleconspiracy).
InMorris,thisCourtexplainedthat"theexistenceofasingleconspiracywillbeinferredwheretheactivitiesofoneaspectoftheschemearenecessaryoradvantageoustothesuccessofanotheraspectortotheoverallsuccessoftheventure.
"46F.
3dat416(emphasisadded).
RhodesexplainedthattheconspiracycoveredallMizelllocations–north,southandwest–andthattheconspiracyoperatedthesame35Thispointappliestotheindividualparticipantsaswellasthecorporations.
Rhodestestifiedthathiscompensationamountedto5percentofthenetprofitsfromallfiveofMizell'slocations.
Tr.
1087.
Andaspresidentsandownersoftheirrespectivecompanies,Smigel'sandThompson's"profitability"wasdirectlylinkedtothatofTherm-AllandSupreme.
45wayoutsideTexasasinTexas.
Tr.
187,1087.
Alloftheparticipants,Smigel,Thompson,MaloofandRhodes,hadcompany-widepricingauthority,andthey"implementedtheschemeinalltheiroffices.
"R.
330at24.
Indeed,alltheevidenceconcerningthewaypriceswereset,thesimilarityandtimingofthepricesheets,andthepolicingactivity(pp.
4-15,supra),makesnodistinctionbetweengeographicregions.
AndasMaloofexplainedwhenhechidedSmithforpricingbelowBay'spricesheet,"[b]eingcompetitive"is"whatcausesthehowlowcanwegogame"thereby"upsettingthebalance.
"GX13Bat9-10.
Thus,salesonthepricesheets,wherevertheyoccurred,were"advantageous"ifnotabsolutelynecessarytotheoverallsuccessoftheventure–makingeachoftheco-conspiratorsmoreprofitable.
35Morris,46F.
3dat416;accordUnitedStatesv.
Morgan,117F.
3d849,859(5thCir.
1997).
3.
Overlapofparticipants.
InUnitedStatesv.
Richerson,833F.
2d1147(5thCir.
1987),thisCourtexplainedthat"[p]artieswhoknowinglyparticipatewithcoreconspiratorstoachieveacommongoalmaybemembersofanoverallconspiracy.
"833F.
2dat1154.
Itfurtherexplained:46Asingleconspiracyexistswherea"keyman"isinvolvedinanddirectsillegalactivities,whilevariouscombinationsofotherparticipantsexertindividualeffortstowardacommongoal.
.
.
.
Themembersofaconspiracywhichfunctionsthroughadivisionoflaborneednothaveanawarenessoftheexistenceoftheothermembers,orbeprivytothedetailsofeachaspectoftheconspiracy.
833F.
2dat1154(citationomitted).
Therm-AllrecognizesthatRhodeswasakeymanor"link"toanationwideconspiracy,butinexplicablyclaimsthat"[t]histypeof'overlap'hasbeenrejectedbytheFifthCircuit.
"Br.
42citingMorris.
ButinMorris,thisCourtexpresslyagreedthat"[a]singleconspiracyexistswherea'keyman'isinvolvedinanddirectsactivities,whilevariouscombinationsofotherparticipantsexertindividualeffortstowardacommongoal.
"46F.
3dat416-17(quotingRicherson,833F.
2dat1154).
Andinthiscase,therewereatleasttwokeymen–RhodesandMaloof–whowereresponsibleforthepricingandprofitsofthetwolaminatorsthatsoldinthelargestgeographicalregions.
Inshort,theevidenceismorethansufficienttosupportthejury'sfindingofasinglenationwideconspiracy.
Butevenifavarianceoccurred,Therm-Allcannotshowthatits"substantialrights"wereaffected.
Generally,whenanindictmentallegesasingleconspiracy"butthegovernmentprovesmultipleconspiraciesandadefendant'sinvolvementinatleastoneofthem,"then"thereisnovarianceaffectingthatdefendant'ssubstantialrights.
"Morrow,177F.
3dat291;accordMorgan,11747F.
3dat859.
Additionally,thejuryinstructionsinthiscase(Tr.
5869-70,5871-72),whicharevirtuallyidenticaltotheinstructionsgiveninMorris,46F.
3dat418,andMorgan,117F.
3dat859,guardedagainstanytransferenceofguilt.
Accordingly,therewasnoprejudicialvarianceinthiscase.
II.
THEJURYWASPROPERLYINSTRUCTEDA.
StandardofReviewThetrialjudgeretainsbroaddiscretioninformulatingjuryinstructions,anditissufficientifthechargegivenadequatelystatestheapplicablelaw.
Juryinstructionsarereviewedasawhole,andtheadequacyoftheentirechargemustbeevaluatedinthecontextofthewholetrial.
Thus,failuretogivearequestedinstructiononadefensetheorythatissupportedbytheevidenceconstitutesreversibleerroronlywhenthechargeasawholedoesnotadequatelypresentthetheory.
E.
g.
,AllStarIndustries,962F.
2dat472-74;UnitedStatesv.
Harrelson,705F.
2d733,736-37(5thCir.
1983).
B.
TheCourt'sIntentInstructionsWereCorrectTherm-Allarguesthat"[t]hejurywasinstructed.
.
.
thatthelevelofpricingand/orcompetitivepricingcouldnotbeconsideredasevidencefavorabletothedefense.
"Br.
34-36.
ItfurtherclaimsthatUnitedStatesv.
UnitedStatesGypsumCo.
,438U.
S.
422(1978),requiresthegovernmenttoprovethatdefendantsspecifically36SupremeadoptsTherm-All'sjurychargearguments.
Br.
60.
48intended"toeffectuatetheobjectoftheconspiracy.
"36Br.
36-38&n.
36.
Therm-All'sfirstargumentissimplywrong;itssecondisfrivolous,havingbeenexpresslyrejectedinCargoServices,supra.
1.
Thecourtinstructedthejurythat,amongotherthings,a"conspiracy"is"anagreement"and,specifically,thatpricefixing"isanagreement.
.
.
toraise,lowerorstabilizeprices.
"Tr.
5864,5867(emphasisadded).
Thejurywasfurtherinstructedthatitcouldnotconvictappellantsunlessitfoundthattheyhad"knowinglyformed,joinedorparticipatedin"thesinglenationwideconspiracychargedintheindictment.
Tr.
5870-71.
Andwhilethejurywastoldthatpricefixingisperseillegal(Tr.
5870-72),itwasalsogivenguidanceconcerningtheevidenceithadtoevaluateinreachingitsverdict.
Specifically,thejurywastoldthat:!
"Meresimilarityofpriceschargeddoesnot,withoutmore,establishtheexistenceofaconspiracy.
.
.
.
Norisitillegalto.
.
.
exchangepricinginformationwithoutmore"(Tr.
5872)(emphasisadded);!
"Apersonorcompanymaylawfullychargepricesidenticaltothosechargedbycompetitorsandmayevencopythepricelistsofacompetitororfollowandconformexactlytothepricepoliciesandchargesofacompetitoraslongasthepersonorcompanydoesnotdosopursuanttoaprice-fixingagreementormutualunderstandingwithacompetitor"(Tr.
5873)(emphasisadded);49!
"Conductthatisasconsistentwithpermissiblecompetitionorindependentactionaswithillegalcollusion,standingalone,isnotsufficienttoprovethattheDefendantjoinedtheconspiracy"(id.
)(emphasisadded);and!
"Youshouldconsideralloftheevidence,givingittheweightandcredibilityyouthinkitdeserves,whendeterminingwhethersimilarityofpricingresultedfromindependentactsofbusinessescompetingfreelyintheopenmarketorwhetheritresultedfromamutualagreementorunderstandingbetweentwoormoreconspirators"(id.
)(emphasisadded).
Giventheseinstructions,Therm-All'sclaimthatthejurywasprecludedfromconsideringevidenceof"competitivepricing"isnonsense.
Indeed,defensecounselarguedatlengthtothejurythatalthoughthegovernmentclaimedthattherewas"somekindofagreement[,][t]heobjectiveevidencesimplydoesn'tsupportthatconclusion.
Whatwehaveislotsofcompetitionstillgoingon.
"Tr.
5905(emphasisadded).
Anddefensecounselspecificallyreliedonthecourt'sinstructionsinemphasizingthattheevidenceestablishednothingbutinnocent"competitiveactivity:"Ialsowantyoutokeepinmindthejuryinstructionthatreallykindofgoestothisconduct.
WhattheJudgereadtoyouthismorning.
.
.
theinstructionshegaveyouisthis:"Conductthatisasconsistentwithpermissiblecompetitionorindependentactionaswithillegalcollusion,standingalone,isnotsufficienttoprovethatthedefendantjoinedintheconspiracy.
"Conductthat'sconsistentwithcompetitiveactivity,thatiswhatwestrivedtoputoninourcase[that]demonstratedtoyou,whenyoulookatthefacts,thatwhatwedidin1994and1995wastoaggressivelycompete.
50Tr.
5970-71.
Immediatelyfollowingthiscommentcounselstatedthat"myjob.
.
.
inthenexthouristokindofmarshalthefacts.
.
.
soyouknowwhattheevidencereallyshows.
"Tr.
5971(emphasisadded).
Then,beginningwith"ourcompetitiveconductstartedinlate1993"(id.
)(emphasisadded),counselsummarizedforthenext40pagesallthe"competitiveactivityandallthecompetition"(Tr.
6008)allegedlydemonstratedbytheevidence.
Tr.
5971-6009.
Thus,asthedistrictcourtcorrectlynoted,appellants"weregivenfreedomtointroduceanyandallevidenceoftheirpricingpracticesandsales"and"[n]othingtheCourtincludedintheinstructionspreventedthejuryfromconsideringDefendants'factualargumentsthatthesalestheyactuallymadewereinconsistentwiththeirhavingenteredintoanypricefixingagreement.
"R.
330at37.
Sinceappellantswereabletopresenttheirtheoriesandargumentsconcerningthecasetothejury,therewasnoneedforanyadditionaljuryinstructiononthesubjectofcompetitivepricing.
SeeUnitedStatesv.
Park,421U.
S.
658,674-75(1975)(juryinstructionsmustbeevaluatedwithinthecontextoftheentiretrial,includingargumentsofcounsel).
Inanyevent,appellants'proposedinstructiononthatissuewasflawed.
Itwouldhavetoldthejurythat"[e]videncethatthedefendantsactuallycompetedwitheachotherorotherallegedconspirators.
.
.
hasbeenadmitted.
.
.
.
"R.
269at1815("Rider18").
Infact,whilebothappellantsandthegovernmenthad51introducedevidenceconcerningappellants'pricingandotherconductduringtheperiodoftheallegedconspiracy,thejuryhadtheresponsibilityofdeterminingwhetherthatevidencewasevidenceofcompetitionorcollusion.
Appellants'proposedRider18wouldhaveusurpedthatjuryfunctionbytellingthejurythatevidenceofcompetitionhadbeenintroducedand,therefore,asthedistrictcourtrecognized,wouldhavebeenanimpropercommentontheevidence.
Tr.
5821-22;R.
330at37.
AndwhileappellantsdiscussedpossiblerevisionstotheirproposedRider18,thecourtcorrectlyconcludedthatalloftheirproposalshadasimilarflawand,inanyevent,wouldhaveaddednothingtothecourt'sinstructions.
Tr.
5821-26.
Accordingly,thedistrictcourtcorrectlyadviseddefensecounselthattheyshouldtakethefactualargumentsthattheyweretryingtohavethecourtmakeforthemintheinstructions,andmakethoseargumentsdirectlytothejury.
Tr.
5822,5826.
Thiscounseldid,andthefactthatthejurywasultimatelynotpersuadedbytheirargumentssimplyreflectsthestrengthofthegovernment'scase,notanyerrorinthecourt'sinstructions.
Finally,Gypsum,reliedonbyTherm-All(Br.
35-36),isirrelevant.
Gypsumconcernedajuryinstructionthatallowed"onlytwocircumscribedandarguablyimpracticalmethodsofdemonstratingwithdrawalfromtheconspiracy.
"438U.
S.
at463-64.
Becausetheinstructionplaced"confiningblinders"onthejury'sabilityto52considerevidenceofwithdrawal,theCourt"conclude[d]thattheunnecessarilyconfiningnatureoftheinstruction,standingalone,constitutedreversibleerror.
"Id.
at464-65.
Incontrastinthiscase,asshownabove,defensecounselusedthecourt'sinstructionsasaspringboardintoa40-pageargumentontheirtheoryofthedefense.
Moreover,contrarytoTherm-All'sclaim(Br.
35),theGypsumCourtdidnotfind"reversibleerror"becausethetrialcourt"declined"togivethedefendants'proposedinstruction.
Rather,itfoundtheinstructionactuallygiven"unnecessarilyconfining,"andinstructedthat"[i]fanewtrialtakesplace,aninstructioncorrectingthiserrorandgivingthejurybroadercompassonthequestionofwithdrawalmustbegiven.
"438U.
S.
at465.
Inshort,becauseadefendantisnotentitledtoitsspecificwordingofaninstruction,andbecausethejury'sinstructions,takenasawhole,adequatelycoveredthedefensetheory,thecourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrefusingdefendant'sspecificwording.
E.
g.
,UnitedStatesv.
Martin,790F.
2d1215,1219(5thCir.
1986);Harrelson,705F.
2dat737.
2.
Therm-AllalsoarguesthatGypsumrequiredthegovernmenttoprovethatitspecificallyintendedtosuppressorrestraincompetitioninapricefixingcase.
Br.
36-38.
ThisargumentisfrivolousbecauseitwasexpresslyrejectedbythisCourtinCargoServices.
Indeed,likeTherm-All,thedefendantsinCargoServicesreliedon53Gypsumtoarguethatthecourtwasrequiredto"instructthejurythatitmustfindanintentonthepartof[defendants]tobringaboutanticompetitiveeffects.
"657F.
2dat681.
Finding"appellants'relianceonGypsumtobemisplaced"(id.
),theCourtexplainedthatbecausepricefixingisperseunlawful,"theintenttofixpricesisequivalenttotheintenttounreasonablyrestraintrade.
"Id.
at682-83;accordAllStarIndustries,962F.
2dat473-74(collectingcases);UnitedStatesv.
YoungBros.
,Inc.
,728F.
2d686,687(5thCir.
1984)(toestablishperseunlawfulbidriggingconspiracy,"thegovernmentwasrequiredtoshowthatappellantknowinglyjoinedorparticipatedintheconspiracy")(emphasisadded).
Becausethedistrictcourt'sintentinstructionsareindistinguishablefromtheinstructionsapprovedinAllStar,962F.
2dat474,andCargoServices,657F.
2dat681,Therm-All'sclaimoferrorisfrivolous.
Comparep.
48,supra.
III.
THEGOVERNMENTDIDNOTPREJUDICETHERM-ALLBYFAILINGTOPRODUCEPHONERECORDSTherm-Allasserts(Br.
44-48)thatthegovernmentviolatedFed.
R.
Crim.
P.
16bynotdisclosingcertainTherm-Alltelephonerecordstoituntilafterthetrial.
Therm-Allcontendsonlythattherewasa"discoveryviolation.
"Br.
44.
Itdoesnotrefertothetelephonerecordsas"exculpatory.
"SeeBradyv.
Maryland,373U.
S.
83(1963).
Nordoesitdisputethegovernment'scontentionthatthediscoveryviolationwasinadvertent.
R.
359at2197.
Therm-All'sargument,whichwasneverpresentedtothe37AsTherm-Allnotes,duringdiscovery"theGovernmenthadproducedthousandsofphonerecords.
"Br.
45.
38ThecourtdidnotissueitsorderdenyingTherm-All'smotionuntilJune10,2002.
R.
330.
54districtcourt,isnotproperlybeforethisCourtand,inanyevent,Therm-Allwasnotprejudicedbytheinadvertentdiscoveryviolation.
OnDecember4,2001,thegovernmentsentdefensecounselaletterstatingthatithad"foundinthefilesofanunrelatedmatter,"additionalTherm-Alltelephonerecordsthathadnotbeenproduced.
37R.
359at2197.
Twoweekslater,onDecember19,2001,thegovernmentforwardedthosetelephonerecordstoTherm-All'scounsel.
AndeventhoughTherm-All'spost-trialmotionforacquittalornewtrialwaspendingatthattime,38Therm-Allneversupplementeditsmotionwithanargumentthatthegovernmentprejudiceditbynotprovidingthosephonerecordsearlier.
Therm-Allnowarguesforthefirsttimeonappealthatthegovernment'sfailuretoproducethephonerecordsbeforetrialwasprejudicial.
Br.
44-48.
BecauseTherm-All'sfailuretoassertitsdiscoveryclaimbelow"result[ed]initsforfeiture,"thereisnoreasonforthisCourttoconsidertheargumentforthefirsttimeonappeal.
UnitedStatesv.
Calverly,37F.
3d160,162(5thCir.
1994)(enbanc).
IfTherm-Allbelievedthatithadbeenprejudicedbythegovernment'sinadvertentviolationofthediscoveryrules,itshouldhaveadvisedthedistrictcourtoftheviolationsothatitcouldhave55decidedwhatremedy,ifany,wasappropriate.
ButevenifTherm-Allcanmakethisargumentforthefirsttimeonappeal,thisCourtcanreverseonlyifitfindsplainerror.
Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
52(b);UnitedStatesv.
Olano,507U.
S.
725,731-32(1993);UnitedStatesv.
Vital,68F.
3d114,119(5thCir.
1995)("(1)theremustbeanerror;(2)theerrormustbeclear,obviousorreadilyapparent;and(3)thisobviouslegalerrormustaffectsubstantialrights").
"Rule52(b)ispermissive,notmandatory.
"Olano,507U.
S.
at736;accordCalverly,37F.
3dat164.
Thus,whereaquestionoffactwas"capableofresolutionbythedistrictcourt"iftheissuehadbeenraised,thisCourthasdeclinedtofindplainerror.
Vital,68F.
3dat119.
Moreover,"plainforfeitederrorsaffectingsubstantialrightsshouldbecorrectedonappealonlyifthey'seriouslyaffectthefairness,integrity,orpublicreputationofjudicialproceedings.
'"Calverly,37F.
3dat164(quotingOlano,507U.
S.
at736).
Inthiscase,thefactualissueofwhetherTherm-Allwasprejudicedbythediscoveryviolationcouldhavebeendecidedbythedistrictcourtand,therefore,thisCourtshoulddeclinetofindplainerror.
Inanyevent,Therm-All'sspecificclaimofprejudiceisunclear.
ItapparentlyarguesthatsomesubsetofthephonerecordspertaintoSmigelandEngebretson,andthatthesubsetcontainsnocallsbetweeneitherofthemandMizellorBay.
SeeBr.
45.
Therm-Allclaimsthatthis"'absence'ofphonecontact.
.
.
isclearlyinformationthatwouldhaveaidedthedefense.
"Id.
Butaswith56itsclaimabouttheoverallsufficiencyoftheevidence,Therm-All'sclaimofprejudiceisbasedontheerroneousassumptionthatSmigel'sacquittal"obviouslydemonstratesthat[thejury]didnotwhollybelieveRhodes.
"Br.
46.
WehavealreadyestablishedthatSmigel'sacquittalisirrelevantandthatRhodes'testimonymustbeviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothegovernment.
Seepp.
20-22,supra.
Underthesecircumstances,thereisnoreasontobelievethatadditionaltelephonerecords,thatbythemselvesprovenothing,wouldhavehadanyimpactonthejury'sverdict.
Inanyevent,Therm-All's"absenceofcontact"argumentwasfullyarguedtothejuryasaprongofthedefense.
E.
g.
,Tr.
5894-95,5946-52,5960-61.
Itisnotclearhowtheadditionaltelephonerecordswouldhavestrengthenedthatargument.
Infact,absenceofcontactduringselectperiodsoftimecouldnotrefutethedirectevidenceofTherm-All'sparticipationintheconspiracy,includingtestimonyofSmigel'sagreementsonprices,Smigel'spolicingoftheagreement,andEngrebretson'sinvolvement,allofwhichiscorroboratedbydocumentaryevidence.
Seepp.
22-25,supra.
Andiftelephonerecordswereimportanttoitsdefense,Therm-Alldidnotneedanyhelpfromthegovernmenttoestablishwhatitsowntelephonerecordseitherprovedordidnotprove.
Inshort,Therm-Allhasinnowaydemonstratedthatthegovernment'sactionaffectedthefairnessorintegrityofthetrial.
57IV.
THEGOVERNMENT'SCLOSINGARGUMENTDIDNOTPREJUDICEAPPELLANTSA.
StandardOfReviewTherm-All(Br.
26-33)andSupreme(Br.
60-61)eachclaimthatduringclosingargument,thegovernmentimproperlyarguedfactsthatwerenotadducedattrial.
Indenyingtheirpost-trialmotions,thedistrictcourtconcludedthatifanyerroroccurred,itscurativeinstructionsandthesubstantialevidenceofguiltrenderedtheerrorharmless.
R.
330at48-55.
ThisCourtreviewsthetrialcourt'sdenialofanewtrialmotionbasedonprejudicialremarksbytheprosecutorduringclosingargumentforabuseofdiscretion.
E.
g.
,UnitedStatesv.
Jefferson,258F.
3d405,412(5thCir.
2001).
"Prosecutorialmisconductisnotagroundforreliefunlessitcastsseriousdoubtuponthecorrectnessofthejury'sverdict.
"Styronv.
Johnson,262F.
3d438,449(5thCir.
2001).
Whendeterminingprejudice,aprosecutor'scommentsmustbereviewedinthecontextoftheentiretrial.
UnitedStatesv.
Munoz,150F.
3d401,415(5thCir.
1998).
Indoingso,thisCourtconsidersthreefactors:"'(1)themagnitudeofthestatement'sprejudice,(2)theeffectofanycautionaryinstructionsgiven,and(3)thestrengthoftheevidenceofthedefendant'sguilt.
'"Morrow,177F.
3dat298(quotingUnitedStatesv.
Tomblin,46F.
3d1369,1389(5thCir.
1995)).
Finally,thedistrictcourt's"assessmentoftheprejudicialeffectcarriesconsiderableweight.
"Morrow,177F.
3dat298.
39Duringclosingargument,whendiscussingMiranda'stestimonyaboutGX6,Supreme'scounselargued:"Ishemakingthatuporwasitaconversationthathehadsixandahalfyearsago"Tr.
6020;seeTr.
6035.
40Mirandahadpreviouslyreadintoevidence,withoutobjection,hisgrandjurytestimonythatwhenheandCereghinocalledThompsonaboutareportedlowMizellbid,ThompsontoldMiranda"letmecallWallybecausethisisnotsupposedtohappen.
"Tr.
2001.
58B.
Supreme1.
Supreme'sclaimthatthegovernmentimproperlyusedMiranda'sgrandjurytestimony"tobolsterRhodes'(sic)testimony"(Br.
61)isfactuallywrong.
Duringrebuttal,theprosecutordiscussedMiranda'stestimonythatThompsonhadtoldhimtousethepricesonGX6"thatshehadjustgottenfromWallyRhodes.
"Tr.
2975.
Theprosecutorthennotedthat:"Now,[defensecounsel]wantstosaythatwassixandahalfyearsago;butatthetimehetestifiedtothegrandjury,whichiscloserintimetothoseevents,hesaidthesamething.
"39Tr.
2975-76.
Theprosecutor'sreferencetograndjurytestimonywasbasedontestimonyduringthetrial.
WhenMirandawasasked"did[Thompson]tellyouhowshegotaholdofthepricesheet"Mirandaanswered:"Well,likeItestifiedatthegrandjury,IhaveavaguerecollectionofhersayingthatshemighthavegotthatfromMr.
Rhodes.
"40Tr.
2004-05(emphasisadded).
Mirandaalsosaidthathehadtestifiedbeforethegrandjuryin1997.
Tr.
1999.
Supremeneverobjectedtothistestimony.
Thus,theprosecutor'sstatementwasfactuallycorrectandnoerroroccurred.
Inany41Thecourtgaveanotherlonggrandjurytestimonyinstructionjustpriortothejury'sdeliberations.
Tr.
6069-70.
59event,afterSupremeobjectedtotheprosecutor'sstatement,thedistrictcourtimmediatelygavethefollowinglimitinginstruction(Tr.
2976-77):Thereisnoevidencefromthegrandjurybeforeus,period.
.
.
.
But,evenifthereisanygrandjury[testimony]onthisoranyotherpoint,itisnotintroducedforthetruth.
Youmaynotrelyongrandjurytestimony,period,foranythingexcept.
.
.
credibilityofawitness.
.
.
.
Butdonotcreditwhatthelawyerssay.
Lawyersaregivingyoutheirargumentsandit'sonlyargument.
Itisnotevidence.
41Underthesecircumstances,thedistrictcourtcorrectlydeniedSupreme'sposttrialmotionconcludingthat"[t]hegovernmenthadarighttorespondwithintherecord.
"R.
330at50.
Thedistrictcourtalsoconcludedthat"therewasnoprejudicefromanyerrortheGovernmentmayhavemade"because"[t]hereweremanyhoursofclosingargumentafteranextendedtrial,"theprosecutor'scomment"wasaminoroneincontext,"and"theCourt[properly]instructedthejury.
"R.
330at50(emphasisinoriginal).
Thus,asinMorrow,"[t]hedistrictcourtmaintainedadmirablecontroloverthislong,complicatedtrialandeffectivelycuredanyquestionableorimpropercommentsbytheprosecutorwithaninstructiontothejury.
"177F.
3dat299.
2.
Supreme'sfurtherclaim(Br.
60)thatthegovernmentimproperlysuggestedthatRhodes'pleaagreementwasevidenceofanationwidepricefixingconspiracyis42Rhodes'pleaagreementtoaninformationcharginganationwidepricefixingconspiracywasadmittedintoevidence.
GX48A&B.
43Initschargetothejury,thecourtexplainedatlengththatRhodes'convictionandpleaagreementwereadmittedonlyforcredibilitypurposesand"arenotevidenceofanythingelse,"andespecially"arenotevidencethatanyoftheDefendantsontrialisguiltyofthecrimechargedintheindictment.
"Tr.
5859.
60specious.
42Aftertheprosecutorstated"whywouldanypersonadmittomorecriminalinvolvementthanhewasactuallyinvolvedin,"theCourttoldhimthathis"argumentsaresusceptibletomisinterpretation.
.
.
.
Youneedtocleanthatup.
.
.
makeitclearthat[Rhodes']pleaofguiltyistobeconsideredbythejuryonlyasitweighsonhisowncredibility.
"Tr.
2958.
Theprosecutorthenstated:Ijustgotinalittletrouble.
Ineedtopointouttoyou,ladiesandgentlemen,andjustremindyou,asthejudgetoldyou,thatMr.
Rhodes'pleaagreementcomesintoyoutosolelyassesshiscredibilityandnotasevidenceagainsttheDefendantinthiscase.
Andthat'sabsolutelytrue.
Tr.
2959-60.
Andafterthecourtremindedthejury:"AndthatisinthechargethatIhavegivenyou.
Theexistenceofthatpleaagreementisnotevidenceagainstanybodyinthistrial,"43theprosecutoradded:"Idon'twantanyonetothinkthatIwasarguingthat,becausethatwouldbesomethingthatIwouldnotbeallowedtoargue.
"Tr.
2960.
Thus,iftherewasanyerrorintheprosecutor'scomment,thecourtcorrecteditonthespotandpreventedanyprejudicetoSupreme.
61C.
Therm-AllTherm-All'sattackonthegovernment'sclosingisalsomeritless.
Therm-Allfirsterroneouslyclaimsthat"[t]heGovernmentpremisedthetheoryof'fixingprices'uponthenotiontheallegedco-conspiratorsexchangeddrafts"andthat"theGovernmentcouldnotprovethispremise.
"ItthenarguesthatthegovernmentmisrepresentedGX5andGX200duringclosing"tosuggestcommunicationofTherm-Allpricesheetstocompetitor's(sic)priortoannouncementofthoseincreasesinthemarket.
"Br.
29-30.
Asaninitialmatter,Therm-All'sclaimignoresdirectevidencethatMizellconformeditsFebruary1994pricesheettoTherm-All's,andthatEngebretsoncalledRhodesonMarch20,1995withTherm-All'snewpricesforunfacedinsulation.
Seepp.
22-23,supra.
Inanyevent,thedistrictcourtcorrectlynotedthatthegovernment'scharacterizationofGX200asa"draftTherm-Allpricesheet"(Tr.
2926)wasappropriatebecause"Smigeleventuallyadmittedthischaracterizationofthedocument.
"R.
330at51.
Infact,SmigeladmittedthatGX200isacopyofaThem-AllpricesheetwithaSeptember1994Therm-Allfaxheader,andisidenticaltoTherm-All'sDecember15,1994pricesheet(GX5)exceptthatanyinformationidentifyingTherm-AllwasremovedfromGX200,andforthatreasonitwasnot"something.
.
.
thatwouldhavegoneouttothecustomers.
"Tr.
2791-93,2802;GX41H.
Thus,since44ThecourtexplainedthatitorderedtheMizellbatesnumbertoberedactedfromGX200becauseitwasofferedafterRhodestestified.
R.
330at51n.
58.
45Therm-All'sclaimthatthegovernment"sandbaggedtheDefendants"by"waitingtopresenttheirargumentinits'rebuttal'"(Br.
29)isspecious.
Asthecourtnoted,"it'snotthat[theprosecutor]brokeadeal.
[Thedefense]openedthedoortosomecommentaboutExhibit5.
.
.
.
Frankly,thedefensemadeeveryargumentknowntomanonExhibit5.
"Tr.
6055.
62GX200isnotsomethingthatwouldhavebeenfaxedtocustomers,thejurycouldreasonablyconcludethatinSeptember1994,weeksbeforeTherm-AllannounceditsDecemberpricestothepubliconOctober17,1994(Tr.
2794;GX41F),Therm-Allfaxedthosepricestoacompetitor.
Consequently,theprosecutor'sstatementthat"WhenMr.
Smigelwasasked,'HowdidthisgetintoWallyRhodes'pricebook'hedidn'tknow"(Tr.
2927),couldnothaveprejudicedTherm-All.
44Inanyevent,thecourtimmediatelyinstructedthejurythatthiswasonly"argumentbycounsel.
It'sargumentonly.
It'snotevidence.
Iftheargumentshoulddifferfromyourviews,youfollowyourownviewsoftheevidence.
"Id.
Underthesecircumstances,therecouldbenoprejudice.
Therm-AllfairsnobetterwithitsclaimthatthegovernmentwronglyimpliedthatTherm-Allvice-presidentDennisKaczmarek"handedoff"adraftTherm-Allpricelist(GX5)toCGI.
Br.
28.
Specifically,theprosecutorhadargued:"IaskedMr.
Smigelwasheawareof[Kaczmarek].
.
.
handingoffthispricesheet[GX5]toCGI.
.
.
andhesaid'No.
NowdoesthatmakesenseIsthatbelievable"45Tr.
2970.
46Thus,Therm-Alldeniedthecourtanopportunitytocorrectanyerrorwhenitoccurred.
Therm-All'sbelatedobjection,therefore,shouldbereviewedonlyforplainerror.
UnitedStatesv.
Baptise,264F.
3d578,591(5thCir.
2001).
47Therm-Allsubmittedaproposedcurativeinstructionthefollowingmorning.
R.
270at4.
63Therm-Alldidnotobjecttothisstatementuntil"afterthejurywasexcusedfortheday"(Br.
28),46andeventhendidnotofferacurativeinstruction.
47SmigeladmittedthatthehandwritingonGX5wasKaczmarek's.
Tr.
2760-61.
AndTherm-All'scounselacknowledgedthat"[i]f[theprosecutor]wouldhavesaid,'Well,thisendedupinCGI'sfile.
Wedon'tknowhow.
Butit'saTherm-Alldraft,'that'sproperargument.
"Tr.
6058(emphasisadded).
Indeed,whenrejectingTherm-All'spost-trialmotionthecourtnotedthat"[t]hefactthatthedocumentwasinCGI'sfileswasalsouncontroverted.
"R.
330at54.
Thus,thecourtcorrectlyconcludedthat"[t]heonlypotentialcriticismoftheGovernment'sargumentwasthereferencetothemannerinwhichthedocumentmayhavereachedCGI'sfiles.
.
.
[although][i]twaswithintherangeofseveralreasonableinferencesthatthedocumentreachedCGI'sfilesbecauseofconductbysomeonefromTherm-All.
"R.
330at54.
Consequently,immediatelybeforethejuryretiredtodeliberate,thecourtinstructedthejurorsthat"questionsthatarenotadoptedbywitnesses,thosequestionsarenotevidence.
[Andthatapplies]toquestionsby48ThecourtproperlyrejectedTherm-All'soverlybroadproposedinstructionbecauseitwouldhave"invade[d]theprovinceofthejury.
"R.
330at53-54,seealsoTr.
6063-64.
64governmentlawyers.
.
.
.
DoeseverybodyunderstandthatOkay.
"48Tr.
6070-71.
Underthesecircumstances,noprejudiceoccurred.
Finally,Therm-All'sattackonthegovernment'scommentsaboutEngebretson'stestimony(Br.
30-31)iscompletelywithoutmerit.
NeitherTherm-Allnoranyotherdefendantobjectedtothosecomments.
Thus,theyarereviewedforplainerror.
E.
g.
,Munoz,150F.
3dat415.
Engebretsontestified:"Wherepricingcameup,IwouldhavetosayIhadaconversationwithRogerFerrywithCGI"(Tr.
1366),and"IrememberonespecifictimeItalkedtohimaboutpricing.
"Tr.
1468(emphasisadded).
Infact,FerryfaxedEngebretsonaCGIbidto"show[Engebretson]thatCGIhadnotlowereditsprice.
"Tr.
1472.
AndGX10E,Engebretson'stelephonesummary,showsthatonJune8,1995,EngebretsonhadashortconversationwithFerry,andthathesenthimafaxonJune15,1995.
Tr.
1525-26.
Duringclosing,theprosecutormadetworeferencestothisevidence:You'veheardthat[Engebretson]wastalkingtoCGI--hisfriend,RogerFerry,atCGIaboutpricingandhewassendinghimapricesheet,exchangingpricing(Tr.
2940).
[I]fyoulookatGovernment'sExhibit10-E,Mark65EngebretsonisfaxingstufftoRogerFerry,hiscompetitor,rightthroughJuneof1995,June15th,andhesaidthathewastalkingtoFerryaboutprices(Tr.
2986).
Giventhetestimonynotedabove,everythinginthesetwopassagesisdirectlysupportedbytherecordexceptthestatementthatEngebretsonwassendingFerryapricesheet,whichtheprosecutorappearstocorrectimmediatelybysaying"exchangingpricing.
"ThedistrictcourtthereforerejectedTherm-All'sclaim,notingthat"[t]heGovernmentwasentitledtoseektheinferences[thatitdid]"and,inanyevent,thatany"errorwasharmlessinlightofthebalanceoftheevidenceofrecord.
"R.
330at55.
Additionally,asnotedabove,thecourtrepeatedlyinstructedthejury,includingjustbeforedeliberations(Tr.
6070-71),thatthelawyer'sstatementswereargumentnotevidence.
Thus,asinMunoz:"Thesecircumstancesdonotevinceplainerror.
"150F.
3dat415.
66CONCLUSIONThejudgmentsofconvictionshouldbeaffirmed.
Respectfullysubmitted.
R.
HEWITTPATEActingAssistantAttorneyGeneralDUNCANS.
CURRIEMARKR.
ROSMANJAMESM.
GRIFFINKARENJ.
SHARPDeputyAssistantAttorneyGeneralA.
JENNIFERBRAYAttorneysJOHNJ.
POWERSIIIU.
S.
DepartmentofJusticeJOHNP.
FONTEAntitrustDivisionAttorneysThanksgivingTowerU.
S.
DepartmentofJustice1601ElmStreetAntitrustDivisionSuite4950601DStreet,N.
W.
Dallas,TX75201-4717Washington,D.
C.
20530(214)880-9401(202)514-243567CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEI,JohnP.
Fonte,amemberofthebarofthisCourt,herebycertifythattoday,June6,2003,Icausedtwopapercopies(alongwitha3inchdiskettecontaininganelectroniccopy)oftheaccompanyingBRIEFFORAPPELLEEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICAtobeservedbyFederalExpressonthefollowing:KarlR.
Wetzel,EsquireWegman,Hessler,Vanderburg&O'Toole6055RocksideWoodsBoulevardSuite200Cleveland,Ohio44131CurtisE.
Woods,EsquireSonnenscheinNath&Rosenthal4520MainStreetSuite1100KansasCity,Missouri64111JOHNP.
FONTE68CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCEWITHFed.
R.
App.
P.
32(a)CertificateOfComplianceWithType-VolumeLimitation,TypefaceRequirements,AndTypeStyleRequirements1.
Thisappellee'sbriefcomplieswiththetype-volumelimitationofFed.
R.
App.
P.
32(a)(7)(B)because:thisbriefcontains15,911words,excludingthepartsofthebriefexemptedbyFed.
R.
App.
P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii),ascountedbytheWordPerfect10.
0wordprocessorusedtoprepareit,andthereforeiswithinthe16,000wordlimitationsetbythisCourt'sorderofJune2,2003.
2.
ThisbriefcomplieswiththetypefacerequirementsofFed.
R.
App.
P.
32(a)(5)andthetypestylerequirementsofFed.
R.
App.
P.
32(a)(6)because:thisbriefhasbeenpreparedinaproportionallyspacedtypefaceusingWordPerfect10.
0in14-pointNewTimesRoman.
JOHNP.
FONTEDated:June6,2003