Case: 18-10277 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 1 of 15 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-10277 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-20205-UU-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DANIEL JOHN PYE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (June 21, 2019) Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-10277 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 2 of 15 Daniel Pye appeals his convictions and sentences for traveling in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct. On appeal, Pye first argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Specifically, he argues that the government failed to disclose before trial certain conversations between one of the government’s agents and certain witnesses. Those conversations, he contends, demonstrate that the witnesses, who were Haitian, had a motive to alter their testimony in exchange for immigration benefits. He argues that these conversations also demonstrated that the government’s agent and the witnesses perjured themselves at trial when they denied the existence of promises for such benefits. Second, Pye contends that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court improperly applied grouping rules and a vulnerable-victim enhancement to his offense-level calculation. Third, Pye asserts that his 480-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court indicated at sentencing that 420 months’ imprisonment may be sufficient. Finally, Pye argues that the district court erred by imposing a $15,000 assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3014, which did not exist at the time Pye committed the offense conduct. 2 Case: 18-10277 Date Filed: 06/21/2019 Page: 3 of 15 I Pye first contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial based on Giglio and Brady violations arising out of newly discovered evidence. We review the district court’s denial of his motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Vallejo, 297 F.3d 1154, 1163 (11th Cir. 2002). To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the defendant must show that (1) the new evidence was discovered after the trial, (2) the failure to discover it was not due to a lack of due diligence, (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching, (4) the evidence was material, and (5) the evidence was such that a new trial would probably produce a new result. United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Ramos, 179 F.3d 1333, 1336 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999)). To succeed on a motion for a new trial based on a Brady violation, the defendant must show that “(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to him; and (3) the evidence was material to the establishment of his guilt or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals