’WPCŽJ µR;#ż°7½Ńf™;ļ5#x·#łPĻŗø_Ī(%[gX:<ŅOņĶČćŌ5ø¶20s"C_LQ“t׌d¦E #xō̰į׋¼Ē-”Ž@=ßbVóŖ÷Q> ÷. ¬ę¦żšB Y AfķLkµ/Õ,_ņ'2’ęĄöÄb A±Og$=efPė Ē;ŪÜTnj‡ŅȤRĻæE1ŖŃÕ.+żŗ”‰ØXA¬‚OQęN’,t쉅i*­ 8£ņ»|{Qņ¼? ¢Ąü9ĖģĄ įbŻż‡H«ĖĖ•<\zHÜk5 Q$j…[€QB/YPn¹¤¦¦=¾((S‡U‡ Ćé¼ā7”Ō¹xU|`„]Ī*ņ ½Įć|+(E„v#7¬c˜­ń—'€ģąŠń&‹Øąēßz×;²į¼Y¦²†öu&Ÿ?[Éū‚®=€„xŽDj˜ˆ||yĢĻ2VIW(8±åÕyOńF’įōÕ.ĪpŹ„qĒ –3›l=_¢šGg˜ ¶A>¶2[wY æeW¦Į®;šSӅ³’Œ!9`ŠfØ/łfl%wķ<'Šą2+*@¼\šVŚc‡ŻÉg° £ąq@„§•ŹN!JŃnŁhA°ÆŒ·„‘šWE72#ɼ %…U8‹ 0GĆU:  0åDU@) nTi N½ U0æ ^ ļ wū 4’  " m$ E; f= a? S 0DW UB› bŻ Ż bå å )ķ  ,ų8ē0Rui^Ž'ć<* .±,0āŻ4 Bæ8›Ü8w:K†<ĆŃ=\”?TšAšAšA9DF}H˜HP LaserJet 2100 PCL6,,,,,,,,0X<4šŪ 9Z+‹ Courier New (‚$””Ō€XOXXXŌ<ž6X9`("Courier NewTT(•(2B%$¤¤Ż ƒ‚!ŻŌ€Xā}XXXŌŻ  ŻÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€5\X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(ÖĆ9 Z‹(Times New Roman «<ž6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxž6X@ÉDQX@<ž6X9`(CourierTTXXwž6X@ÉüQX@ <4šŪ 9Z+‹Courier ¶„b6Z …y\6yfiles3|x0’U‹’ĄĄĄųĄTABLE A śŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś*Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌOf€the€Tenth€Circuit,€sitting€by€designation.(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó<ž6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ł-- ł- Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌHe€was€not€convicted€on€Count€5,€one€of€the€extortionŠ ° Šcharges. Ń ° Ń Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThis€is€the€translation€as€provided€by€the€defendant. īŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś4Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌIn€denying€Ō_ŌMislaŌ_Ō's€motion€for€reconsideration€of€the€denialŠ ° Šof€the€motion€for€change€of€venue,€the€district€court€said€that€itŠ †Ö Šwould€reconsider€the€issue€of€venue€if€the€voir€dire€wasŠ \¬ Šunsuccessful. ŻŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś6Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌIn€addition€to€the€lack€of€any€evidence€of€actual€prejudiceŠ ° Šon€the€part€of€the€jury,€we€note€the€additional€fact€that€the€juryŠ †Ö Šempaneled€through€this€process€actually€ņņacquittedóó€Ō_ŌMislaŌ_Ō€on€Count€5. HŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś7Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌWe€note€that€in€the€transcript€for€December€9,€2002,€the€caseŠ ° Šnumber€was€given€correctly€at€one€point.€€Tr.€12/9/02€at€4.€Š †Ö ŠTherefore,€it€would€have€been€a€simple€matter€for€the€mistake€to€beŠ \¬ Šcorrected.€€We€have€not€found€any€reference€in€the€transcripts,€norŠ 2‚ Šhave€the€parties€pointed€us€to€one,€where€the€parties€reportedŠ X Špursuing€the€mistakenly€cited€case€no.€92„094€and€discovering€thatŠ Ž. Šit€was€unrelated€to€Ō_ŌPubillŌ_Ō.Š “  Šą  ąIt's€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record€why€what€should€haveŠ Š Ś Šbeen€a€routine€matter€of€searching€conviction€records€was€soŠ ` ° Šfraught€with€difficulty.€€In€addition€to€the€judge's€clerical€errorŠ 6 †  Šin€reporting€the€case€number,€some€confusion€about€names€may€haveŠ  \  Šplayed€a€role.€€In€the€instant€case,€Eduardo€and€Ō_ŌEdgardoŌ_Ō's€surnameŠ ā 2  Šis€given€as€"Ō_ŌPubillŌ_Ō,"€but€in€the€transcripts€the€parties€also€usedŠ ø  Š"Ō_ŌPubilŌ_Ō"€and€"Ō_ŌPurillŌ_Ō."€€The€indictment€and€judgment€of€Ō_ŌEdgardoŌ_Ō€alsoŠ ŽŽ  Šused€"Ō_ŌPubilŌ_Ō." kŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś8Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€government's€brief€would€have€us€review€the€denial€of€aŠ ° Šnew€trial€under€the€standards€of€Fed.€R.€Ō_ŌCrimŌ_Ō.€P.€33,€rather€thanŠ †Ö ŠņņBradyóó,€presumably€because€they€would€classify€the€evidence€ofŠ \¬ ŠŌ_ŌPubillŌ_Ō's€conviction€as€"newly€discovered"€rather€than€as€somethingŠ 2‚ Šknown€to€the€government€but€not€disclosed.€€If€it€were€true€thatŠ X Šthe€conviction€had€never€been€disclosed,€this€distinction€would€beŠ Ž. Šimportant.€€We€would€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€denial€ofŠ “  Ša€motion€for€a€new€trial€under€Rule€33€only€if€the€new€evidenceŠ Š Ś Šcreated€an€"actual€probability€that€an€acquittal€would€haveŠ ` ° Šresulted€if€the€evidence€had€been€available."€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.Š 6 †  ŠņņŌ_ŌSepulvedaŌ_Ōóó,€15€F.3d€1216,€1220€(1st€Cir.€1993).€€On€the€other€hand,Š  \  Šwe€would€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€denial€of€a€new€trialŠ ā 2  Šfor€a€ņņBradyóó€violation€if€the€new€evidence€merely€created€aŠ ø  Š"reasonable€probability€that€the€evidence€would€have€changed€theŠ ŽŽ  Šresult."€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņŌ_ŌJosleynŌ_Ōóó,€206€F.3d€144,€151€(1st€Cir.Š d“  Š2000).€€"The€standard€applied€to€new€trial€motions€based€on€ņņBradyóóŠ :Š  Šviolations€is€thus€more€favorable€to€defendants."€€ņņId.óó€€However,Š `  Šbecause€the€disclosure€was€at€worst€delayed,€rather€thanŠ ę6 Šnonexistent,€our€review€standards€are€substantially€equivalent.€Š ¼  ŠņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņŌ_ŌOsorioŌ_Ōóó,€929€F.2d€753,€758€(1st€Cir.€1991)Š ’ā Š(noting€that€standard€of€review€for€delayed€disclosure€underŠ hø ŠņņŌ_ŌIngraldiŌ_Ōóó€is€essentially€one€of€prejudice).Š >Ž Šą  ąThis€spares€us€the€difficulty€of€determining€whether€theŠ d Šgovernment€can€"newly€discover"€a€conviction€that€it€itselfŠ ź: Šsecured.€€ņņCf.óó€ņņŌ_ŌKylesŌ_Ōóó€v.€ņņWhitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€437€(1995)€(holdingŠ Ą Šthat€"prosecutor€has€a€duty€to€learn€of€any€favorable€evidenceŠ –ę Šknown€to€the€others€acting€on€the€government's€behalf€ņņinóó€ņņtheóó€ņņcaseóó"Š l¼ Š(emphasis€added));€ņņŌ_ŌOsorioŌ_Ōóó,€929€F.2d€at€761€(applying€ņņBradyóó€toŠ B’ Ševidence€of€a€witness's€drug€dealing€that€was€not€known€toŠ h Šprosecutor,€but€known€to€others€in€his€office,€and€holding€that€theŠ ī> Š"prosecutor€charged€with€discovery€obligations€cannot€avoid€findingŠ Ä Šout€what€'the€government'€knows,€simply€by€declining€to€makeŠ šź Šreasonable€inquiry€of€those€in€a€position€to€have€relevantŠ pĄ   Šknowledge"ņņóó).€€ņņButóó€ņņcf.óó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņBenderóó,€304€F.3d€161,€164Š ° Š(1st€Cir.€2002)€(stating,€in€ņņdictumóó,€that€duties€under€ņņBradyóó€may€beŠ †Ö Šrequired€only€of€those€such€as€"members€of€the€prosecuting€team,Š \¬ Šincluding€police€investigators€working€for€the€prosecution").€ TŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś18Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌEven€if€notice€were€to€be€required,€there€was€plenty.€€TheŠ ° Šgovernment€asked€for€forfeiture€under€18€U.S.C.€šš€982,€withoutŠ †Ö Šspecifying€a€subsection.€€šš€982€expressly€incorporates€21€U.S.C.€ššŠ \¬ Š853.€€18€U.S.C.€šš€982(b)(1).€€Thus€šš€982€also€incorporates€theŠ 2‚ Šsubstitute€assets€provision€at€šš€853(p). ŁŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś9Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņŌ_ŌFaluŌ_Ō„Ō_ŌGonzšį šlezŌ_Ōóó,€205€F.3d€436€(1st€Cir.€2000),Š ° Šthe€one€case€that€Ō_ŌMislaŌ_Ō€does€point€us€to,€is€inapposite.€€In€thatŠ †Ö Šcase,€a€witness€testified€to€knowing€about€some€sales€of€drugs,€butŠ \¬ Šin€fact€had€not€observed€the€sales€and€had€only€been€told€of€themŠ 2‚ Šby€another.€€The€judge€allowed€the€testimony€as€an€admission€of€aŠ X Šco„conspirator,€and€thus€admissible€under€an€exception€to€theŠ Ž. Šhearsay€rule.€€ņņId.óó€at€438;€ņņseeóó€Fed.€R.€Ō_ŌEvidŌ_Ō.€802(d)(2)(E).€€ThatŠ “  Šanalysis€is€not€relevant€here. Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś10Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌCount€1,€charging€conspiracy€to€commit€extortion,€did€notŠ ° Šcontain€this€misstatement,€saying€instead€"Economic€Fear€ņņand/oróóŠ †Ö ŠUnder€Color€of€Official€Right."€€Ō_ŌMislaŌ_Ō€does€not€appeal€hisŠ \¬ Y Šconviction€under€Count€1.€ §Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś11Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌWe€note€that€this€does€not€conflict€with€our€holdingsŠ ° Šprohibiting€duplicitous€indictments.€€ņņSeeóó,€ņņe.g.óó,€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.Š †Ö ŠņņŌ_ŌVerrecchiaŌ_Ōóó,€196€F.3d€294,€297€(1st€Cir.€1999)€(prohibitedŠ \¬ Šduplicitous€indictments€are€those€that€join€in€a€single€count€twoŠ 2‚ Šor€more€distinct€offenses).€€The€problem€with€a€duplicitousŠ X Šindictment€is€that€a€jury€could€convict€without€unanimity€as€to€anyŠ Ž. Šparticular€offense.€€Here,€because€Count€2€names€only€one€offense,Š “  Šthis€is€not€a€concern.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņŌ_ŌArreolaŌ_Ōóó,€467€F.3dŠ Š Ś Š1153,€1157€(9th€Cir.€2006)€(noting€distinction€between€whether€"theŠ ` ° Šstatute€at€issue€creates€separate€offenses,€or€simply€describesŠ 6 †  Šalternative€means€to€commit€the€same€crime"). ŲŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś12Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌEven€so,€the€fear€element€was€also€presented€to€the€jury.€Š ° ŠThe€fear€element€of€the€statute€can€include€fear€of€economic€loss,Š †Ö Šincluding€loss€of€future€business€opportunities.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€StatesóóŠ \¬ Šv.€ņņŌ_ŌBucciŌ_Ōóó,€839€F.2d€825,€827„28€(1st€Cir.€1988).€€The€governmentŠ 2‚ Šargued€at€trial,€and€there€was€sufficient€evidence€for€a€jury€toŠ X Šfind,€that€the€parties€were€induced€to€pay€Ō_ŌMislaŌ_Ō€in€part€for€fearŠ Ž. Šthat,€if€another€bidder€won€the€right€to€buy€Ō_ŌHAOLŌ_Ō,€Ō_ŌCASŌ_Ō'sŠ “  Šanaesthesiology€contract€might€not€be€renewed. d ‘Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThis€juror,€number€80,€was€challenged€because€he€hadŠ ° Šexpressed€his€understanding€that,€as€a€matter€of€statistics,€mostŠ †Ö Šdefendants€are€found€guilty€at€trial. Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś13Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌPersuading€or€trying€to€persuade€a€potential€witness€toŠ ° Štestify€to€something€other€than€the€persuader's€"true€belief"Š †Ö Šcounts€as€"corruptly€persuading"€a€person€under€šš€1512.€€ņņCruzado„Š \¬ ŠŌ_ŌLaureanoŌ_Ōóó,€404€F.3d€at€487. AŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś17Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_Ō18€U.S.C.€šš€982(b)(1)€incorporates€21€U.S.C.€šš€853,€with€theŠ ° Šexception€of€subsection€(d). ¹Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś14Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌAn€"official€proceeding"€includes€federal€trials€and€federalŠ ° Šgrand€jury€investigations.€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņŌ_ŌFrankhauserŌ_Ōóó,€80€F.3dŠ †Ö Š641,€651€(1st€Cir.€1996) RŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś15Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌIt€is€also€immaterial€that€the€U.S.€Attorney's€Office€toldŠ ° Šhim€he€was€not€a€target.€€First,€a€jury€could€find€that€he€stillŠ †Ö Šfeared€that€he€could€become€a€target€later.€€Second,€the€statuteŠ \¬ Šdoes€not€require€that€the€person€attempting€to€tamper€with€aŠ 2‚ Šwitness€actually€be€the€target€of€the€official€proceeding. JŻ ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś16Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌThe€district€court's€order€is€not€as€explicit€as€we€wouldŠ ° Šlike€in€this€regard.€€The€order€of€forfeiture€could€be€read€asŠ †Ö Šreferring€only€to€the€specific€funds€that€were€laundered,€thoughŠ \¬ Šthe€subsequent€judgment€includes€an€unambiguous€order€to€forfeitŠ 2‚ Š$147,400€in€cash.€€Ō_ŌMislaŌ_Ō€does€not€pursue€this€point€on€appeal,€soŠ X Šwe€assume€here€that€a€money€judgment€was€entered€against€him.€€ThisŠ Ž. Šposition€is€bolstered€by€the€transcript€of€the€forfeiture€hearing,Š “  Šin€which€the€long€discussion€between€the€judge€and€the€attorneysŠ Š Ś Šcentered€specifically€around€the€power€of€the€judge€to€enter€aŠ ` ° Šmoney€judgment,€rather€than€an€order€to€forfeit€the€specificŠ 6 †  Štraceable€proceeds. /Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś19Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŌ_ŌMislaŌ_Ō€makes€an€additional€argument€tying€back€to€his€earlierŠ ° Šargument€regarding€the€money€judgment€and€substitute€assets,€namelyŠ †Ö Šthat€he€can€only€forfeit€those€amounts€still€in€his€possession€andŠ \¬ Šunspent.€€As€discussed€above,€this€argument€is€unavailing€to€him. Ż ƒB%$ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ=€'˜X‚ŠXdŠd=Óą  ąņņŚ  Ś5Ś  ŚóóŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŌ_ŌMislaŌ_Ō€argues,€incorrectly,€that€the€district€court€denied€theŠ ° Šchange€of€venue€motion€because€it€was€filed€close€to€the€beginningŠ †Ö Šof€trial.€€In€fact,€that€reason€was€raised€only€in€the€denial€ofŠ \¬ Šthe€certification€to€appeal.Ż ƒ‚!ŻŌ€Xņ XXXŌŻ  ŻŌ_ ŌŃTRXģ3Ų'Xą3Ų' Letter3Ų'Letter’3Ų'LetterTŃŃ ? ŃŁ*ƒ ‚!Łņ ņÓ  ÓÓ  ÓŌ‡X®)XXXņ ŌŌ‡°gͰXX®)ŌUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsŌ#†X®)X°°gĶ#ŌŠ ° ŠŌ‡„Šģ„XX®)ŌFor€the€First€CircuitŌ#†X®)X„„Šģx#Ōó óŌ#†Xņ XXX®)ä#ŌŠ „Ō ŠÓŲÓĢĢßA€') °°` dE< ` Aߊ  ą ŠĢĢŌ€ X'˜XXXņ ŌŌ‡Xņ XX X'˜ŌNo.€03„2073Š K › ŠNo.€04„1424Š ! q ŠĢą@ģąUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆŠ Ķ   ŠĢą@ŠŠ&ģąAppellee,ˆŠ yÉ  ŠĢą@tt)ģąv.ˆŠ %u  ŠĢą@ˆˆģąEDISON€MISLA„ALDARONDO,ˆŠ Ń! ŠĢą@ ģąDefendant,€Appellant.ˆŠ }Ķ ŠĢßA€') °°` dE<(` Aߊ )y ŠĢą@` ` ģąAPPEALS€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆŠ ^ ŠĢÓ  ÓFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€PUERTO€RICOŠ ŗ  ŠĢą@@ģģ*ģą[Hon.€Carmen€Consuelo€Cerezo,€ņņU.S.€District€Judgeóó]Š f¶ ŠĢßA€') °°` dE<` Aߊ b ŠĢą@@„„'ģąBeforeŠ ÷G ŠĢą@@((ģą€Howard,€ņņCircuit€Judgeóó,Š £ó  ŠĢStahl€and€Baldock,׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś*Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀ņņSenior€Circuit€Judgesóó.Š O Ÿ" ŠĢßA€') °°` dE<ś!` Aߊ ū!K$ ŠĢÓ  Óą  ąņņLaura€Maldonado€Rodršķ šguezóó€for€appellant.Š ą"0& Šą  ąņņThomas€M.€Gannonóó,€Attorney,€Appellate€Section,€CivilŠ ¶#' ŠDivision,€U.S.€Department€of€Justice,€with€whom€ņņRosa€E.Š Œ$Ü( ŠRodršķ šguez„Velezóó,€United€States€Attorney,€and€ņņNelson€Perez„Sosaóó,Š b%² ) ŠAssistant€United€States€Attorney,€were€on€brief,€for€appellee.Š 8&ˆ!* ŠĢĢŌ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ŌŌ,( dd ŌŌ,( dd ŌŌ,( dd ŌŌ+  ŌŠ ŗ( $-ŗ( $ ‹‹ŠŠ SI)n$. Ąć@39142„„‰Ąć@‰‹‹SŠĢMarch€2,€2007Š ō)D%0 ŠŠ RHCŹ*&1" Ąć@39142 Ąć@ ‹‹RŠā āŠ," )n$2 ?’ ,Їā āŁ* ‚!ŁÓ  ÓŃ  ŃÓÓŃ8€'˜XXdšdČ8ŃŃ€ŃÓ*°,X°` Ø ƒX°œX*ÓŌ",USś ś, ś (ś:!ś&ś),Ōą ` ąņ ņSTAHL,€ņņSenior€Circuit€Judgeó óóó.€€Ń€ŃŌ"FUSś ś, ś (ś:!ś&ś)USś ś, ś (ś:!ś&ś)FŌŃ€OYŃEdison€Misla€AldorandoŠ ° Š("Misla"),€the€former€Speaker€of€the€Puerto€Rico€House€ofŠ xČ ŠRepresentatives,€was€convicted€in€U.S.€District€Court€for€theŠ $t ŠDistrict€of€Puerto€Rico€of€extortion,€money€laundering,€and€witnessŠ Š  Štampering.€€The€charges€stemmed€from€a€scheme€by€a€group€bidding€toŠ | Ģ Špurchase€a€state€hospital€being€privatized.€€The€group€sought,€andŠ ( x  Špaid€for,€Misla's€help€in€securing€the€regulatory€approval€neededŠ Ō$  Šfor€the€purchase.€€A€jury€convicted€Misla€and€he€was€sentenced€toŠ €Š  Š71€months'€imprisonment€and€three€years'€supervised€release,€finedŠ ,|  Š$12,500,€and€ordered€to€forfeit€$147,400.€€Misla€now€appeals€hisŠ Ų( Šconviction€and€sentence,€and€the€denial€of€his€motion€for€a€newŠ „Ō Štrial.€€We€affirm.Š 0€ Šņ ņÓ  ÓI.€Factual€Backgroundó óŠ Ü, ŠÓÓņ ņó óą ` ąIn€the€late€1990s,€the€Puerto€Rico€Department€of€HealthŠ ¤ō Š(PRDH)€and€the€Government€Development€Bank€(GDB)€began€privatizingŠ P  Šthe€islandššs€state„owned€hospitals.€€ņņSeeóó€P.R.€Laws€Ann.€tit.€24,€ššššŠ üL Š3301„3325€(repealed€2003).€€Investors€were€identified€through€aŠ Øų  Šcompetitive€bidding€process,€with€private€entities€with€an€existingŠ T!¤" Šhospital€management€contract€being€given€an€option€to€purchase€thatŠ #P$ Šparticular€hospital€without€participating€in€any€competitiveŠ ¬$ü& Šbidding€process.Š X&Ø!( Šą ` ąThe€Dr.€Alejandro€Otero€Lopez€Hospital€(HAOL)€in€Manatšķ š,Š (T#* ŠPuerto€Rico,€was€a€public€hospital€managed€by€Carribean€HospitalŠ °)%, ŠCorporation€(CHC).€€Co„defendants€Dr.€Josšé š€De€Jesšś šs€Toro€("DeŠ \+¬&. ŠŃOYŃā āѰ°Ńā āŃ  ŃJesšś šs")€and€Dr.€Alvin€Ramšķ šrez€Ortiz€("Ramrez")€owned€CarribeanŠ ° ŠAnesthesia€Services,€Inc.€(CAS),€HAOL's€anesthesiology€provider.Š \¬ ŠCAS€wished€to€purchase€HAOL,€and€to€circumvent€the€bidding€processŠ X Šit€needed€first€to€acquire€CHC's€management€contract.Š “  Šą ` ąDe€Jess€and€Ramrez€hired€co„defendant€Jos€Ivan€RamosŠ ` ° ŠCubano€("Ramos")€to€assist€with€the€purchase€of€the€CHC€contractŠ  \  Šand,€ultimately,€HAOL€in€exchange€for€consulting€fees€of€$15,000Š ø  Šper€month€and€a€partnership€in€their€company.€€The€first€step,€theŠ d“  Špurchase€of€the€CHC€contract,€required€the€approval€of€PRDH.€€RamosŠ `  Šarranged€for€a€meeting€with€co„defendant€Jos€Gerardo€Cruz€ArroyoŠ ¼  Š("Cruz"),€the€head€of€PRDH's€legal€division.€€Ultimately,€CruzŠ hø Šwould€take€a€bribe€in€order€to€allow€CAS€to€purchase€CHC's€contractŠ d Što€manage€HAOL.Š Ą Šą ` ąThe€next€step€was€obtaining€GDB's€approval€for€theŠ l¼ Špurchase€of€HAOL€outright.€€Ramos€testified€that€he€solicited€theŠ h Šassistance€of€Misla€because€Misla€had€a€close€relationship€withŠ Ä ŠMarcos€Rodršķ šguez€Ema€("Rodrguez"),€GDB's€president.€€Misla€agreedŠ pĄ  Što€help€secure€GDB's€approval€in€exchange€for€payment.€€Ramos€alsoŠ !l" Štestified€that€Misla,€in€furtherance€of€the€agreement,€arrangedŠ Č"$ Šmeetings€between€CAS€and€Rodrguez€that€CAS€could€not€haveŠ t$Ä& Šotherwise€obtained.€€ņņóóRamosššs€testimony€was€corroborated€by€that€ofŠ  &p!( ŠRamrez.€€€€Š Ģ'#* Šą ` ąIn€October€1997,€an€independent€law€firm€engaged€by€GDBŠ x)Č$, Šrecommended€that€CAS€be€deemed€ineligible€to€purchase€HAOL€becauseŠ $+t&. ŠCAS€oŲŲwed€an€outstanding€debt€to€PRDH.€€Regardless,€RodrguezŠ ° Šordered€the€privatization€committee€to€accept€CASššs€offer€of€$14Š \¬ Šmillion€for€HAOL€and€to€arrange€for€CAS€to€repay€the€outstandingŠ X Šdebt€at€a€future€date.€€The€sale€of€HAOL€to€CAS€was€completed€onŠ “  ŠSeptember€17,€1998.Š ` ° Šą ` ąBetween€August€and€October€1998,€Ramos€transferredŠ  \  Šapproximately€$147,400€from€HAOL€„„€now€managed€by€CAS€„„€to€MislaŠ ø  Šby€cashing€checks€and€furnishing€the€proceeds€directly€to€Misla€orŠ d“  Šhis€associates.Š `  Šą ` ąIn€May€2001,€Puerto€Ricoššs€Justice€Department€beganŠ ¼  Šinvestigating€the€transaction€and€eventually€Misla.€€In€OctoberŠ hø Š2001,€Ramos€agreed€to€cooperate€with€the€government€and€record€hisŠ d Šconversations€with€Misla.€€While€being€recorded,€Misla€suggested,Š Ą Šamong€other€things,€that€Ramos€leave€the€country€for€a€while;€thatŠ l¼ Šthey€come€up€with€a€cover€story€for€the€payments;€and€that€he,Š h ŠMisla,€would€work€to€stall€or€stop€the€investigation.Š Ä Šą ` ąOn€October€25,€2001,€Misla€was€indicted€for€extortion,Š pĄ  Šmoney€laundering,€and€witness€tampering.€Following€a€jury€trial,Š !l" ŠMisla€was€convicted€on€five€of€the€six€charges.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś1Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€On€June€20,€2003,Š Č"$ Šthe€district€court€sentenced€Misla€to€concurrent€terms€of€71Š t$Ä& Šā āmonths'€imprisonment€for€each€conviction€and€three€years'Š  &p!( Šsupervised€release.€€The€court€also€ordered€him€to€forfeit€theŠ ° Š$147,400€paid€to€him€by€Ramos.€Š \¬ Šā āą ` ąAdditional€facts€relevant€to€the€various€issues€on€appealŠ X Šare€recited€below.Š “  Šņ ņÓ  ÓII.€DiscussionŠ ` ° ŠÓė$ÓA.€Pretrial€Motionsó óŠ ( x  Šą ` ąņņ1.€BackgroundóóŠ š@  Šą ` ąThe€indictment,€as€well€as€unrelated€charges€againstŠ œģ  ŠMisla€for€sexual€assault€on€a€minor,€generated€considerableŠ H˜  Špretrial€publicity.€€The€publicity€included€posters€put€upŠ ōD Šthroughout€San€Juan€bearing€Mislaššs€photograph€and€the€caption,Š  š Šš šStealing€Prohibited:€the€Government€does€not€admit€competitors.šš×ƒׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś2Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀Š Lœ ŠAlleging€that€this€pretrial€publicity€was€prejudicial,€Misla€movedŠ ųH Šfor€a€change€of€venue€to€the€Virgin€Islands€and,€in€theŠ ¤ō Šalternative,€a€90„day€continuance€to€allow€for€any€pretrialŠ P  Špublicity€to€subside.€€Misla€also€requested€expanded€jury€voirŠ üL Šdire.€ū’’dūŠ Øų  Šą ` ąü’’düū’’’dūThe€district€court€denied€all€motions,€but€conductedŠ T!¤" Šindividualized€voir€dire€over€a€five„day€period.€€Misla€submittedŠ #P$ Ša€list€of€84€proposed€voir€dire€questions€to€the€court.€€The€courtŠ ¬$ü& Šselected€several€of€Mislaššs€proposed€questions,€including€questionsŠ X&Ø!( Šconcerning€pretrial€publicity,€the€sexual€assault€charges€pendingŠ (T#* Šagainst€Misla,€and€whether€the€jurors€believed€Misla€to€be€aŠ °)%, Šcorrupt€politician.€€During€voir€dire,€Misla€requested€fiveŠ ° Šadditional€peremptory€challenges.€€He€renewed€his€request€at€theŠ \¬ Šclose€of€voir€dire.€€Both€motions€were€denied.Š X Šą ` ąü’’’düOf€the€84€jurors€interviewed,€13€were€excused€forŠ “  Špossible€bias.€€After€the€completion€of€voir€dire,€Misla€challengedŠ ` ° Šan€additional€eight€jurors€for€cause.€€The€district€court€deniedŠ  \  Šthe€challenges.€€Ultimately,€the€final€petit€jury€contained€onlyŠ ø  Šone€of€the€jurors€that€had€been€challenged€by€Misla.׃(ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś3Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ d“  Šą ` ąWe€review€a€district€court's€decisions€on€motions€forŠ `  Šchange€of€venue,€continuance,€expanded€voir€dire,€and€additionalŠ ¼  Šperemptory€challenges€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€StatesóóŠ hø Šv.€ņņBrandonóó,€17€F.3d€409,€441€(1st€Cir.€1994)€(change€of€venue);Š d ŠņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņRodrguez„Marreroóó,€390€F.3d€1,€21„22€(1st€Cir.Š Ą Š2004)€(continuance);€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņAnagnosóó,€853€F.2d€1,€5€(1stŠ l¼ ŠCir.€1988)€(expanded€voir€dire);€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņMarrero„Ortšķ šzóó,Š h Š160€F.3d€768,€776€(1st€Cir.€1998)€(peremptory€challenges)€(citingŠ Ä ŠņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņCoxóó,€752€F.2d€741,€748€(1st€Cir.€1985)).Š pĄ  Šą ` ąņņ2.€Change€of€VenueóóŠ !l" Šą ` ąA€change€of€venue€is€proper€if€the€court€determines€thatŠ Č"$ Šthere€exists€"so€great€a€prejudice€against€the€defendant€.€.€.€inŠ t$Ä& Šthe€transferring€district€that€the€defendant€cannot€obtain€a€fairŠ  &p!( Šand€impartial€trial€there."€€Fed.€R.€Crim.€P.€21(a).€€In€makingŠ Ģ'#* Šthis€determination,€we€ask€1)€whether€the€degree€of€inflammatoryŠ ° Špublicity€had€so€saturated€the€community€such€as€to€make€itŠ \¬ Š"virtually€impossible€to€obtain€an€impartial€jury,"€ņņUnited€StatesóóŠ X Šv.€ņņMcNeillóó,€728€F.2d€5,€9€(1st€Cir.€1984),€or€2)€if€prejudiceŠ “  Šcannot€be€presumed,€whether€nonetheless€the€empaneled€jury€wasŠ ` ° Šactually€prejudiced€against€the€defendant.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.Š  \  ŠņņRodrguez„Cardonaóó,€924€F.2d€1148,€1158€(1st€Cir.€1991);€ņņUnitedŠ ø  ŠStatesóó€v.€ņņAngiuloóó,€897€F.2d€1169,€1181€(1st€Cir.€1990).€€Misla€doesŠ d“  Šnot€argue€actual€juror€prejudice€on€appeal,€and€so€we€review€onlyŠ `  Šfor€whether€prejudice€should€have€been€presumed€from€the€extent€ofŠ ¼  Šthe€pretrial€publicity.Š hø Šą ` ąA€presumption€of€prejudice€is€reserved€for€those€extremeŠ d Šcases€where€publicity€is€"both€extensive€and€sensational€inŠ Ą Šnature."€€ņņId.óó€€Merely€a€high€volume€of€media€coverage€is€notŠ l¼ Šsufficient€to€presume€prejudice,€if€that€coverage€is€factual,€asŠ h Šopposed€to€inflammatory.€€ņņId.óó;€ņņseeóó€ņņBrandonóó,€17€F.3d€at€441.€€AŠ Ä Šcourt€may€judge€the€partiality€of€the€community€by€looking€to€theŠ pĄ  Š"length€to€which€the€trial€court€must€go€in€order€to€select€jurorsŠ !l" Šwho€appear€to€be€impartial."€€ņņMurphyóó€v.€ņņFloridaóó,€421€U.S.€794,€802„Š Č"$ Š03€(1975).€€In€general,€"[i]t€is€sufficient€if€the€juror€can€layŠ t$Ä& Šaside€his€impression€or€opinion€and€render€a€verdict€based€on€theŠ  &p!( Ševidence€presented€in€court."€€ņņDobbertóó€v.€ņņFloridaóó,€432€U.S.€282,Š Ģ'#* Š302€(1977)€(quoting€ņņIrvinóó€v.€ņņDowdóó,€366€U.S.€717,€723€(1961)).€€ButŠ x)Č$, Šwhen€a€large€percentage€of€the€venire€is€disqualified,€thisŠ $+t&. Ševidence€of€prejudice€in€the€community€may€lead€a€court€toŠ ° Š"properly€question€the€remaining€jurors'€avowals€of€impartiality."€Š \¬ ŠņņAngiuloóó,€897€F.2d€at€1181„82€(citing€ņņMurphyóó,€421€U.S.€at€802„03).Š X Šą ` ąThe€publicity€surrounding€this€case€was€undoubtedlyŠ “  Šextensive.€€Misla€had€been€the€Speaker€of€the€Puerto€Rico€House€ofŠ ` ° ŠRepresentatives€and€was€simultaneously€being€investigated€onŠ  \  Šcharges€of€sexual€assault€on€a€minor.€€To€address€this,€theŠ ø  Šdistrict€court€conducted€an€extensive€and€individualized€voir€dire,Š d“  Štaking€15€to€25€minutes€with€each€juror€and€asking€each€upwards€ofŠ `  Š50€questions.Š ¼  Šą ` ąThe€questions€were€substantially€the€same€for€all€jurorsŠ hø Šand€covered€subjects€such€as:€the€jurors'€own€beliefs€in€Misla'sŠ d Šguilt€or€innocence;€which€newspapers€they€read,€radio€stations€theyŠ Ą Šlistened€to,€and€television€stations€they€watched;€whether€they€hadŠ l¼ Šread€particular€newspaper€articles€or€columns;€whether€they€hadŠ h Šlistened€to€the€comments€of€the€Secretary€of€Justice;€whether€theyŠ Ä Šhad€participated€in,€or€listened€to€the€results€of,€any€radioŠ pĄ  Špolls;€whether€they€had€discussions€with€others€about€the€case;Š !l" Šwhether€they€were€members€of€a€political€party;€and€whether€theyŠ Č"$ Šhad€views€about€the€corruption€of€politicians€in€general,€and€MislaŠ t$Ä& Šand€his€party€in€particular.€€The€district€court€further€inquiredŠ  &p!( Šinto€whether€the€jurors€or€any€close€friends€or€family€members€hadŠ Ģ'#* Šā āever€been€a€victim€of€rape€or€sexual€molestation.€€The€districtŠ x)Č$, Šcourt€also€inquired€extensively€into€the€jurors'€understanding€ofŠ ° Šthe€presumption€of€innocence€and€the€burden€of€proof.Š \¬ Šā āą ` ąIn€the€end,€only€13€out€of€84€jurors€were€excused€forŠ X Špossible€bias.€€This€rate€of€disqualification,€roughly€15€percent,Š “  Šis€too€low€to€be€sufficient€to€presume€prejudice€in€the€community.€Š ` ° ŠņņSeeóó€ņņMurphyóó,€421€U.S.€at€803€(no€prejudice€presumed€where€around€25Š  \  Špercent€of€venire€"indicated€an€opinion"€as€to€guilt);€ņņBrecheenóó€v.Š ø  ŠņņReynoldsóó,€41€F.3d€1343,€1351€(10th€Cir.€1994)€(25%€of€venireŠ d“  Šexcluded€"for€cause");€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņMoreno€Moralesóó,€815€F.2dŠ `  Š725,€735€(1st€Cir.€1987)€(25%€of€venire€"admitted€.€.€.€toŠ ¼  Šbelieving€that€defendants€were€guilty");€ņņaccordóó€ņņIrvinóó,€366€U.S.€atŠ hø Š727€(prejudice€presumed€where€90%€of€venire€"entertained€someŠ d Šopinion€as€to€guilt").€€Even€if€we€include€the€eight€additionalŠ Ą Šjurors€that€Misla€challenged€for€cause€(but€which€the€judge€foundŠ l¼ Šwere€not€biased),€the€percentage€would€only€be€25€percent.Š h Šą ` ąWhile€a€low€percentage€of€disqualification€is€not€a€safeŠ Ä Šharbor€against€a€finding€of€prejudice,€it€is€strong€evidenceŠ pĄ  Šagainst€it.€€But€it€may€nonetheless€be€countered€by€persuasiveŠ !l" Šdirect€evidence€of€the€level€of€saturation€of€inflammatoryŠ Č"$ Špublicity.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņRodrguez„Cardonaóó,€924€F.2d€at€1158.€€Here,€MislaŠ t$Ä& Šprovided€the€district€court€with,€by€his€count,€over€180€articlesŠ  &p!( Šattempting€to€show€such€saturation,€and€the€court€nonetheless€heldŠ Ģ'#* Šā āthat€change€of€venue€was€not€necessary€given€the€extensive€voirŠ x)Č$, Šdire€that€was€planned.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś4Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€Misla€does€not€now€point€us€to€anyŠ ° Šā āspecific€evidence€that€would€lead€us€to€believe€that€the€judgeŠ \¬ Šabused€her€discretion€in€denying€the€motion,€especially€given€theŠ X Šsuccess€of€the€voir€dire.׃1čׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś5Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€ņņAccordóó€ņņRideauóó€v.€ņņLouisianaóó,€373€U.S.Š “  Š723€(1963)€(holding,€in€reversing€conviction€based€solely€onŠ ` ° Špretrial€publicity€without€a€finding€of€actual€prejudice€in€jurors,Š  \  Šthat€television€broadcast€of€filmed€confession€seen€by€two„thirdsŠ ø  Šof€the€community€necessitated€a€presumption€of€prejudice)€(cited€inŠ d“  ŠņņMoreno€Moralesóó,€815€F.2d€at€735„36).Š `  Šą ` ąņņ3.€ContinuanceóóŠ ¼  Šą ` ą"We€grant€'broad€discretion'€to€a€trial€court€to€decideŠ hø Ša€continuance€motion€and€will€only€find€abuse€of€that€discretionŠ d Šwith€a€showing€that€the€court€exhibited€an€'unreasonable€andŠ Ą Šarbitrary€insistence€upon€expeditiousness€in€the€face€of€aŠ l¼ Šjustifiable€request€for€delay.'"€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņRodrguez„Š h ŠMarreroóó,€390€F.3d€1,€21„22€(1st€Cir.€2004)€(quoting€ņņUnited€StatesóóŠ Ä Šv.€ņņRodrguez€Cortesóó,€949€F.2d€532,€545€(1st€Cir.€1991)).€€"AmongŠ pĄ  Šthe€factors€to€be€considered€in€reviewing€a€denial€of€a€motion€forŠ !l" Ša€continuance€are€.€.€.€the€defendant's€diligence,€theŠ Č"$ Šinconvenience€to€the€court€and€other€parties,€the€likely€utility€ofŠ ° Ša€continuance,€and€any€unfair€prejudice€caused€by€the€denialņņóó."€Š \¬ ŠņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņOrlando„Figueroaóó,€229€F.3d€33,€40€(1st€Cir.€2000).Š X Šą ` ąHere,€Misla€argues€for€a€continuance€only€on€the€groundsŠ “  Šof€pretrial€publicity,€which,€as€discussed€above,€was€sufficientlyŠ ` ° Šaddressed€by€the€voir€dire.€€With€that€issue€dealt€with,€denyingŠ  \  Šthe€motion€for€continuance€was€not€an€unreasonable€or€arbitraryŠ ø  Šinsistence€on€expeditiousness,€and€thus€the€judge€did€not€abuse€herŠ d“  Šdiscretion.Š `  Šą ` ąņņ4.€Expanded€Voir€DireŠ ¼  Šą ` ąóóMisla€is€imprecise€in€his€objection€to€the€voir€direŠ hø Šprocedures.€€In€his€brief,€Misla€at€times€seems€to€be€saying€thatŠ d Šthe€voir€dire€should€have€been€expanded€to€allow€more€of€hisŠ Ą Šquestions€to€be€asked.€€At€other€times,€he€seems€to€be€arguing€thatŠ l¼ Šthe€questions€that€were€asked€were€prejudicial€(which,€if€true,Š h Šwould€not€be€solved€by€expanding€the€number€of€questions).€€TheŠ Ä Šlatter€argument€has€no€merit€since€the€questions€Misla€complains€ofŠ pĄ  Šhere,€relating€to€sexual€molestation,€were€precisely€those€that€heŠ !l" Šrequested€be€asked.Š Č"$ Šą ` ąThe€former€argument,€that€the€voir€dire€should€have€beenŠ t$Ä& Šexpanded€yet€further€beyond€the€already€expanded€voir€dire€that€theŠ  &p!( Šcourt€conducted,€also€fails.€€In€deciding€on€the€manner€in€which€toŠ Ģ'#* Šconduct€voir€dire,€the€court€"has€broad€discretion€.€.€.€subjectŠ x)Č$, Šonly€to€the€essential€demands€of€fairness.€€It€need€not€permitŠ $+t&. Šcounsel€to€dominate€the€process,€nor€pose€every€voir€dire€questionŠ ° Šrequested€by€a€litigant."€€ņņRealóó€v.€ņņHoganóó,€828€F.2d€58,€62€(1st€Cir.Š \¬ Š1987)€(citation€omitted).Š X Šą ` ąThe€only€specific€question€Misla€says€should€have€beenŠ “  Šasked€was€one€regarding€whether€the€jurors€were€talking€about€theŠ ` ° Šcase€among€themselves€while€awaiting€voir€dire.€€The€judge€deniedŠ  \  Šthe€particular€question€as€being€too€open„ended€and€not€probativeŠ ø  Šof€whether€the€particular€juror€being€questioned€had€talked€aboutŠ d“  Šit€in€a€way€that€might€have€influenced€the€juror's€opinion€ofŠ `  ŠMisla's€guilt.€€The€judge€said€that€the€existing€voir€direŠ ¼  Šquestions€adequately€delved€into€that€area.€€We€agree.€€The€judgeŠ hø Šdid€a€thorough€job€of€probing€for€bias€and€Misla€is€far€from€makingŠ d Šthe€required€showing€that€the€lack€of€this€question€or€othersŠ Ą Šprejudiced€him.׃ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś6Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€ņņSeeóó€ņņMurphyóó,€421€U.S.€at€803;€ņņseeóó€ņņalsoóó€ņņUnitedŠ l¼ ŠStatesóó€v.€ņņCasasóó,€425€F.3d€23,€48„49€(1st€Cir.€2005)€(lengthyŠ h Šindividualized€voir€dire€sufficient€to€overcome€any€prejudice€as€aŠ Ä Šresult€of€juror€communications€with€third€party).Š pĄ  Šą ` ąņņ5.€Additional€Peremptory€ChallengesŠ !l" Šą ` ąóóMisla€asked€for,€and€was€denied,€five€additionalŠ Č"$ Šperemptory€challenges.€€Misla€argues,€essentially,€that€he€was€owedŠ t$Ä& Šmore€peremptory€challenges€because€he€had€been€denied€several€ofŠ  &p!( Šhis€for„cause€challenges.€€To€the€degree€that€this€is€a€roundaboutŠ Ģ'#* Šattempt€to€challenge€those€for„cause€denials,€it€fails.€€"'ThereŠ ° Šare€few€aspects€of€a€jury€trial€where€we€would€be€less€inclined€toŠ \¬ Šdisturb€a€trial€judge's€exercise€of€discretion,€absent€clear€abuse,Š X Šthan€in€ruling€on€challenges€for€cause€in€the€empaneling€of€aŠ “  Šjury.'"€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņGonzšį šlez„Soberalóó,€109€F.3d€64,€69„70€(1stŠ ` ° ŠCir.€1997)€(quoting€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņMcCarthyóó,€961€F.2d€972,€976Š  \  Š(1st€Cir.€1992)).€€Misla€raises€no€other€substantive€argument€forŠ ø  Šwhy€more€peremptory€challenges€were€required.€€Given€that€he€didŠ d“  Šnot€use€any€of€his€allotted€ten€challenges€on€the€cause„challengedŠ `  Šjurors,€we€fail€to€see€the€connection,€particularly€since,€again,Š ¼  Šthere€has€been€no€claim€of€actual€prejudice€among€the€petit€juryŠ hø Šmembers.€€There€was€no€abuse€of€discretion.Š d Šņ ņB.€Ramos„Pubill€Connectionó óŠ Ą Šą ` ąņņ1.€BackgroundóóŠ ˆŲ Šą ` ąDuring€trial€on€December€4,€2002,€counsel€for€Misla€wasŠ 4„ Šcross„examining€Ramos,€the€government's€cooperating€witness.€Š ą0 ŠSeeking€to€impeach€him,€counsel€asked€Ramos€about€several€differentŠ ŒÜ  Šbad€acts€allegedly€attributable€to€him.€€In€one€particularŠ 8!ˆ" Šexchange,€counsel€asked€Ramos€about€an€investment€of€$300,000€he'dŠ ä"4$ Štaken€from€a€gas€station€owner€named€Eduardo€Pubill€to€invest€onŠ $ą& Šhis€behalf€in€a€company€called€Telefšó šnica€Hispanoamericano.€€ItŠ <&Œ!( Šturned€out€that€Eduardo€Pubill's€son,€Edgardo,€was€a€convicted€drugŠ č'8#* Štrafficker,€and€that€it€was€likely€that€the€$300,000€were€proceedsŠ ”)ä$, Šof€illegal€drug€sales€that€Edgardo€was€seeking€to€launder€throughŠ @+&. Šhis€father's€gas€station€and€the€Telefš;šnica€HispanoamericanoŠ ° Šinvestment.Š \¬ Šą ` ąCounsel€for€Misla€challenged€Ramos€on€whether€he€knewŠ X Šthat€he€was€laundering€money,€but€Ramos€denied€knowing€the€sourceŠ “  Šof€the€money,€saying€that€he€simply€believed€that€an€owner€of€a€gasŠ ` ° Šstation€would€be€likely€to€have€excess€cash€to€invest.€€At€sidebar,Š  \  Šthe€government€said€that€Ramos€had€only€discovered€the€illegalŠ ø  Šsource€of€the€funds€while€being€debriefed€by€thenš– šU.S.€AttorneyŠ d“  ŠGuillermo€Gil€in€preparation€for€trial€in€this€case.€€Gil,€havingŠ `  Šworked€on€the€prosecution€of€Edgardo€Pubill,€was€aware€of€the€gasŠ ¼  Šstation€in€question€because€he€had€attempted€to€seek€itsŠ hø Šforfeiture,€since€it€was€likely€a€front€for€Edgardo's€drugŠ d Štrafficking.€€The€district€court€ordered€the€government€to€lookŠ Ą Šinto€the€Ramos„Pubill€transaction€further,€and€any€other€potentialŠ l¼ Šactivities€or€cases€involving€Eduardo€Pubill,€the€father.Š h Šą ` ąTwo€days€later,€on€December€6,€2002,€the€prosecutionŠ Ä Šreported€that€Eduardo€Pubill€had€no€federal€convictions.€€The€courtŠ pĄ  Šthen€ordered€the€prosecution€to€obtain€official€certification€fromŠ !l" Šfederal€investigating€agencies,€such€as€the€Federal€Bureau€ofŠ Č"$ ŠInvestigation€(FBI),€the€Drug€Enforcement€Administration€(DEA),€andŠ t$Ä& Šthe€U.S.€Customs€Service,€as€to€whether€there€was€any€evidence€thatŠ  &p!( ŠRamos€laundered€money€for€Eduardo€Pubill€or€his€son,€Edgardo.Š Ģ'#* Šą ` ąOn€December€9,€2002,€the€judge,€having€inquired€with€theŠ x)Č$, ŠProbation€Office,€reported€that€Eduardo€Pubill€did€in€fact€have€aŠ $+t&. Šprior€conviction,€in€case€no.€92„194.€€On€the€same€date,€the€courtŠ ° Šissued€an€order€requiring€the€FBI,€DEA,€Customs€Service,€andŠ \¬ ŠInternal€Revenue€Service€to€produce€any€interview€or€investigationŠ X Šreports€related€to€case€no.€"92„094,"€against€Eduardo€Pubill,€andŠ “  Šno.€"91„299,"€against€Edgardo€Pubill,€that€referenced€Ramos€orŠ ` ° ŠTelefšó šnica€Hispanoamericana.€€Unbeknownst€to€the€court€or€counsel,Š  \  Šcase€no.€92„194€was€incorrectly€cited€on€the€order€as€no.€92„094.€Š ø  ŠPerhaps€because€of€this€error,€no€further€information€about€aŠ d“  Šconviction€of€Eduardo€Pubill€was€discovered.Š `  Šą ` ąUpon€learning€of€the€court's€order,€Deputy€U.S.€MarshalŠ ¼  ŠRoberto€Vizcarrondo€recalled€an€interview€he€had€done€with€anŠ hø Šinformant€named€Pedro€Torres€Molano€("Torres")€on€December€4,€2001,Š d Šwhen€Vizcarrondo€was€detailed€to€the€FBI€Intelligence€ResearchŠ Ą ŠCenter,€in€which€Torres€had€stated€that€he€had€helped€to€launderŠ l¼ Šthe€Pubills'€money€through€Ramos,€and€that€Ramos€was€well€aware€ofŠ h Šthe€source€of€the€funds.€€On€December€11,€2002,€he€forwarded€theŠ Ä Šdraft€Form€302€interview€sheet€("Form€302"),€in€which€he€hadŠ pĄ  Šearlier€written€the€details€of€the€conversation,€to€FBI€agent€JosŠ !l" ŠFigueroaū’’’dū.ü’’’dü€€The€next€day,€the€Form€302€was€provided€to€the€court€byŠ Č"$ ŠFBI€agent€Jane€Erickson.€€šShe€noted€that€the€Form€302€was€notŠ t$Ä& Šrelated€to€the€case€numbers€referenced€in€the€courtššs€December€9Š  &p!( Šorder,€but€was€relevant€to€Ramos€and€Telefš;šnica€Hispanoamericano.€Š Ģ'#* Šą ` ąAfter€an€ū’’’dūinspection€of€the€document,€the€court€issued€aŠ x)Č$, Šsubsequent€order€that:€(1)€indicated€that€the€newly€discovered€FormŠ $+t&. Š302€was€relevant€to€witness€Ramos;€(2)€included€a€redacted€copy€ofŠ ° Šthe€Form€302;€and€(3)ü’’’dü€granted€Misla€a€continuance€until€DecemberŠ \¬ Š17,€2002.Š X Šą ` ąTorres€was€called€to€testify,€and€in€his€testimony€onŠ “  ŠDecember€20,€2002,€he€stated€that€he€informed€Ramos€thatŠ ` ° Šš šsupposedly€the€money€came€from€an€illegal€source.šš€ū’’’dū€Tr.€12/20/02Š  \  Šat€44.€€Soon€after€that,€the€court€interrupted€the€testimony€toŠ ø  Šhold€an€evidentiary€hearing€to€determine€whether€Misla€could€alsoŠ d“  Šuse€the€Form€302€to€impeach€Ramos.€€During€the€evidentiary€hearing,Š `  ŠVizcarrondo,€FBI€Special€Agent€Judith€Priegues„Lšó špez€("Priegues")ü’’’dü,Š ¼  Šand€FBI€Agent€Carlos€Hernšį šndez€testified€that€the€Form€302€wasŠ hø Šcreated€but€never€indexed€or€uploaded€to€the€central€server€whereŠ d Šother€agents€would€have€been€able€to€query€the€form.€They€alsoŠ Ą Štestified€that€Vizcarrando€had€originally€provided€the€Form€302€toŠ l¼ ŠPriegues,€who€then€hand„delivered€a€disk€with€the€interview€toŠ h ŠHernndez's€office€after€telling€him€by€phone€to€expect€it.€Š Ä ŠHernndez€testified€that€he€recalled€the€conversation€withŠ pĄ  ŠPriegues,€but€that€he€never€received€the€disk,€and€did€not€followŠ !l" Šup€with€Priegues€when€it€did€not€appear.Š Č"$ Šą ` ąMisla€then€moved€to€have€the€jury€discharged€and€theŠ t$Ä& Šindictment€dismissed,€alleging€prosecutorial€misconduct.€€MislaŠ  &p!( Šargued€that€Hernndez€had€been€present€during€Ramos's€testimony€andŠ Ģ'#* Šremained€silent€despite€remembering€his€conversation€with€PrieguesŠ x)Č$, Šabout€the€Form€302.€€The€district€court€denied€the€motion€rulingŠ $+t&. Šthat,€while€Misla€had€difficulty€obtaining€the€impeachmentŠ ° Šmaterial,€he€now€had€the€material€and€could€make€effective€use€ofŠ \¬ Šit.Š X Šą ` ąThe€testimony€of€Torres€resumed€after€the€close€of€theŠ “  Ševidentiary€hearing.€€Torres€was€allowed€to€review€the€Form€302,Š ` ° Šand€he€clarified€his€earlier€testimony€by€further€stating€that€heŠ  \  Š"told€Ramos€.€.€.€that€it€was€being€said€that€the€money€coming€fromŠ ø  ŠPubil[l]€were€proceeds€of€drugs."€€Tr.€12/20/02€at€163šš.€€Š d“  Šą ` ąThe€trial€continued€on€December€26,€2002.€€Misla€recalledŠ `  ŠRamos€and€cross„examined€him€regarding€his€prior€testimony€aboutŠ ¼  Šthe€transaction€with€Eduardo€Pubill.€€Misla€also€moved€that€day€toŠ hø Šquestion€both€Hernndez€and€Priegues€regarding€the€Form€302,Š d Šstating€that€such€testimony€would€allow€the€jury€to€make€inferencesŠ Ą Šregarding€the€government's€intention€to€withhold€impeachmentŠ l¼ Šmaterial.Š h Šą ` ąOn€January€14,€2003,€the€district€court€denied€Misla'sŠ Ä Šmotion€to€question€Hernndez€and€Priegues.€€The€court€stated€thatŠ pĄ  ŠMisla€was€merely€attempting€to€demonstrate€prosecutorialŠ !l" Šmisconduct,€and€that€such€evidence€was€not€relevant€to€impeachingŠ Č"$ ŠRamos.€€Trial€continued€from€that€point,€and€a€verdict€was€reached.Š t$Ä& Šą ` ąOn€October€9,€2003,€nearly€nine€months€after€the€jury€hadŠ  &p!( Šreturned€a€verdict,€the€prosecution€filed€an€informative€motionŠ Ģ'#* Šstating€that€Eduardo€Pubill,€the€source€of€the€money€that€RamosŠ x)Č$, Šinvested€in€the€Telefš;šnica€Hispanoamericano€stock,€had€beenŠ $+t&. Špreviously€convicted€in€federal€court€of€structuring€financialŠ ° Štransactions€to€avoid€reporting€requirements,€in€violation€ofņņóó€31Š \¬ ŠU.S.C.€šš€5324.€€The€motion€stated€that€the€government€was€filingŠ X Šthe€motion€because€this€information€was€contrary€to€theŠ “  Šgovernment's€assertion€at€trial€that€Eduardo€Pubill€had€noŠ ` ° Šconvictions.€€The€government€explained€this€lapse€by€saying€thatŠ  \  Šearlier€database€searches€by€several€agencies€had€turned€up€nothingŠ ø  Šexcept€for€the€conviction€of€Eduardo's€son,€Edgardo€Pubill.€€TheŠ d“  Šcase€number€for€this€conviction€was€92„194,€which,€as€discussedŠ `  Šabove,€had€been€erroneously€given€as€92„094€in€the€district€court'sŠ ¼  Šorder€seeking€more€information€on€Pubill.Š hø Šą ` ąMisla€moved€to€dismiss€the€indictment€or,€in€theŠ d Šalternative,€for€a€new€trial.€€He€argued€that€the€failure€toŠ Ą Šdisclose€Eduardo€Pubill's€conviction€earlier€was€prosecutorialŠ l¼ Šmisconduct€that€denied€him€the€chance€to€fully€impeach€Ramos,€theŠ h Šgovernment's€main€witness.€€The€district€court€denied€the€motion,Š Ä Šsaying€that€even€without€the€record€of€Eduardo€Pubill's€conviction,Š pĄ  Šthere€was€ample€material€with€which€to€impeach€Ramos,€including€theŠ !l" Štestimony€of€Torres.€€The€district€court€also€stated€that€it€wouldŠ Č"$ Šhave€been€straightforward€for€Misla€to€discover€the€error€in€theŠ t$Ä& Šcase€number€and€bring€it€to€court's€attention.Š  &p!( ŠĢĢŠ $+t&. Šą ` ąņņ2.€The€Form€302€InterviewóóŠ ° Šą ` ąWe€review€for€abuse€of€discretion€a€district€court'sŠ \¬ Šdecision€on€how€to€handle€a€delayed€disclosure.€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.Š X ŠņņCatanoóó,€65€F.3d€219,€227€(1st€Cir.€1995).€€Š “  Šą ` ąPrior€to€trial,€Misla€sought€discovery€under€ņņGiglioóó€v.Š ` ° ŠņņUnited€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150€(1972),€of€information€potentiallyŠ  \  Šuseful€in€impeaching€government€witnesses.€€Under€ņņGiglioóó,€theŠ ø  Šwithholding€of€such€impeachment€information€would€fall€under€theŠ d“  Šrule€of€ņņBradyóó€v.€ņņMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963),€that€suppression€ofŠ `  Šfavorable€evidence€violates€due€process€if€the€evidence€is€materialŠ ¼  Što€guilt€or€punishment.€€ņņGiglioóó,€405€U.S.€at€154.€€Where€theŠ hø Ševidence€is€never€forthcoming,€we€ask€whether€that€nondisclosureŠ d Š"might€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial."€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.Š Ą ŠņņAgursóó,€427€U.S.€97,€104€(1976).€€However,€where€the€evidence€isŠ l¼ Šonly€delayed,€we€ask€instead€"whether€defendant's€counsel€wasŠ h Šprevented€by€the€delay€from€using€the€disclosed€materialŠ Ä Šeffectively€in€preparing€and€presenting€the€defendant's€case."€Š pĄ  ŠņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņIngraldióó,€793€F.2d€408,€411„12€(1st€Cir.€1986);Š !l" Šņņseeóó€ņņCatanoóó,€65€F.3d€at€227.Š Č"$ Šą ` ąTo€prevail€on€this€argument,€the€defendant€must€at€aŠ t$Ä& Šminimum€make€"a€ņņprimaóó€ņņfacieóó€showing€of€a€plausible€strategic€optionŠ  &p!( Šwhich€the€delay€foreclosed."€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņDevinóó,€918€F.2d€280,Š Ģ'#* Š290€(1st€Cir.€1990);€ņņseeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņLemmereróó,€277€F.3d€579,Š x)Č$, Š588€(1st€Cir.€2002).€€Misla€has€made€no€such€showing€here.€Š $+t&. ŠInstead,€he€argues€only€that€the€circumstances€of€the€disclosureŠ ° Šimply€an€attempt€by€the€government€to€deliberately€keep€theŠ \¬ Šinformation€from€Misla.€€Even€if€that€were€true,€it€is€notŠ X Šsufficient€to€force€a€mistrial€where€the€defendant€is€notŠ “  Šprejudiced.€€"The€critical€inquiry€is€not€why€disclosure€wasŠ ` ° Šdelayed€but€whether€the€tardiness€prevented€defense€counsel€fromŠ  \  Šemploying€the€material€to€good€effect."€€ņņDevinóó,€918€F.2d€at€290.€€Š ø  Šą ` ąThe€district€court€found€that€the€delayed€disclosure€hadŠ d“  Šno€effect,€since€Misla€was€still€able€to€use€the€information€toŠ `  Šimpeach€Ramos.€€Indeed,€Misla€appears€to€have€been€fully€aware€ofŠ ¼  Šthe€allegations€contained€in€the€Form€302€ņņprioróó€to€trial,€since€theŠ hø Šallegations€of€money€laundering€first€came€to€light€through€hisŠ d Šcounsel's€cross„examination€of€Ramos.€€Given€this,€we€fail€to€seeŠ Ą Šhow€Misla€was€prejudiced€by€the€delayed€disclosure€of€the€Form€302Š l¼ Šinterview€with€Torres.Š h Šą ` ąMisla€also€challenges€the€district€court's€ruling€to€Š Ä Šdisallow€the€testimony€of€Hernndez€and€Priegues,€the€FBI€agentsŠ pĄ  Šwho€had€originally€handled€the€Form€302.€€The€court€stated€thatŠ !l" Štestimony€regarding€an€alleged€cover„up€was€not€relevant€to€theŠ Č"$ Šcase,€especially€given€that€Misla€already€had€the€Form€302€admittedŠ t$Ä& Šinto€evidence€to€use€to€impeach€Ramos.€€Misla€argues€that€the€factŠ  &p!( Šof€any€government€cover„up€would€have€bolstered€his€argument€thatŠ Ģ'#* Šā āRamos€was€lying€about€laundering€the€Pubill€money.€€Š x)Č$, Šą ` ąIt€may€be€that€this€ruling€should€be€reviewed€as€a€Š ° Šā ātypical€evidentiary€matter,€rather€than€as€a€ruling€on€a€possibleŠ \¬ Šsanction€for€a€ņņBradyóó€violation,€but€regardless€our€review€is€solelyŠ X Šfor€abuse€of€discretion.€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņGuerrieróó,€428€F.3d€76,Š “  Š79€(1st€Cir.€2005)€(as€to€evidentiary€ruling);€ņņCatanoóó,€65€F.3d€atŠ ` ° Š227€(as€to€decision€on€delayed€disclosure).€€For€the€same€reasonsŠ  \  Šas€discussed€above,€we€find€no€such€abuse€here.Š ø  Šą ` ąņņ3.€The€Eduardo€Pubill€ConvictionóóŠ d“  Šą ` ąFollowing€the€government's€informative€motion€of€OctoberŠ `  Š9,€2003,€regarding€Eduardo€Pubill's€conviction€for€structuringŠ ¼  Šfinancial€transactions€to€avoid€reporting€requirements,€Misla€movedŠ hø Što€dismiss€the€indictment€or,€in€the€alternative,€for€a€new€trial.€Š d ŠThe€judge€denied€the€motion.Š Ą Šą ` ąThis€issue€presents€a€slight€puzzle€with€respect€to€ourŠ l¼ Šstandard€of€review,€though€it€is€easily€resolved.€€The€denial€ofŠ h Šthe€motion€appears€to€be€subject€to€our€review€under€the€standardsŠ Ä Šgiven€in€ņņBradyóó€and€ņņGigilioóó,€just€as€the€delayed€disclosure€of€theŠ pĄ  ŠForm€302€interview€with€Torres€was,€as€discussed€aboveņņóó.€€TheŠ !l" Šgovernment's€informative€motion€describes€this€as€a€case€ofŠ Č"$ Šnondisclosure,€which€would€subject€them€to€a€relatively€toughŠ t$Ä& Šstandard€of€review€if€we€were€to€review€under€ņņBradyóó.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņAgursóó,Š  &p!( Š427€U.S.€at€104€(whether€disclosure€"might€have€affected€theŠ Ģ'#* Šoutcome€of€the€trial").€€However,€it's€not€clear€that€this€isŠ x)Č$, Šnondisclosure€„„€or€even€delayed€disclosure€„„€since€the€courtŠ $+t&. Šinformed€both€parties€on€December€9,€2002,€during€trial,€of€exactlyŠ ° Šthis€conviction.€€The€trouble€arises€because€of€the€court's€errorŠ \¬ Šin€noting€the€case€as€no.€92„094€rather€than€no.€92„194€in€itsŠ X ŠDecember€9€order.€€ņņóóPerhaps€as€a€result€of€that€clerical€error,Š “  Šthough€we€can't€know€for€sure,€no€party€seems€to€have€followed€upŠ ` ° Šon€that€particular€case,€and€thus€no€party€informed€the€court€ofŠ  \  Šits€error€in€reporting€the€case€number.׃ ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś7Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ ø  Šą ` ąAs€the€district€court€itself€noted€after€receiving€theŠ d“  Šgovernment's€informative€motion,€Š `  ŠŅ°ŅҰŅÓÓ[t]he€fact€that€this€motion€has€been€filed€at€all€leadsŠ ¼  Što€confusion€since€the€Court,€despite€the€government'sŠ ’ā Šrepresentation€during€trial€that€Mr.€Eduardo€Pubill„Š hø ŠRivera€had€not€been€convicted,€took€the€initiative€toŠ >Ž Šprobe€into€the€matter.€€The€result€of€that€inquiry€wasŠ d Šthe€disclosure€to€the€parties€of€Mr.€Eduardo€Pubill„Š ź: ŠRivera's€conviction€and€sentence.€.€.€.€€We€do€notŠ Ą Šanticipate€any€controversy€arising€from€the€informationŠ –ę Šprovided€in€the€government's€last€motion€since€this€isŠ l¼ Šnot€newly€discovered€information€but€rather€dataŠ B’ Šdisclosed€and€utilized€during€the€trial.Š h Šā āŠ ī> ŠŅ°ŃØŅҰèŅÓߨÓSealed€Order,€October€10,€2003.€€We€agree€with€the€district€court'sŠ ° Šā āreasoning.€€This€is€at€worst€an€instance€of€delayed€disclosure,Š \¬ Šsince€the€information€came€out€during€trial,€and€thus€we€again€askŠ X Š"whether€defendant's€counsel€was€prevented€by€the€delay€from€usingŠ “  Šthe€disclosed€material€effectively€in€preparing€and€presenting€theŠ ` ° Šdefendant's€case."€€ņņIngraldióó,€793€F.2d€at€411„12.€€Our€standard€ofŠ  \  Šreview€of€the€denial€of€the€motion€is,€again,€abuse€of€discretion.׃!ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś8Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀Š ø  ŠņņCatanoóó,€65€F.3d€at€227.€€We€find€no€such€abuse€here,€simply€becauseŠ ° ŠMisla€was€not€prevented€from€preparing€by€the€delay.€€In€his€brief,Š \¬ ŠMisla€constructs€an€unlikely€string€of€events:€knowledge€of€EduardoŠ X ŠPubill's€conviction€for€a€financial€crime€would€have€led€to€himŠ “  Šbeing€called€to€testify;€he€would€then€have€disclosed€the€moneyŠ ` ° Šlaundering€scheme€with€Ramos;€the€judge€would€have€been€forced€toŠ  \  Šinstruct€the€jury€that€Ramos€was€a€perjurer;€and€this€would€have€soŠ ø  Šundermined€his€credibility,€as€the€government's€main€witness,€as€toŠ d“  Šmake€conviction€of€Misla€impossible.€€This€is€inference€piled€uponŠ `  Šinference,€particularly€since€Ramos€had€already€been€impeached€overŠ ¼  Šthe€Pubill€connection€(not€to€mention€his€own€involvement€in€theŠ hø Šconspiracy€at€issue€in€the€instant€case).€€More€fundamentally,Š d Šbecause€Misla€was€provided€this€information€during€trial,€butŠ Ą Šapparently€did€not€pursue€it,€we€cannot€say€that€the€delay€causedŠ l¼ Šany€prejudice.Š h Šą ` ąFinally,€it€should€not€be€forgotten€that€ņņRamosóó€was€theŠ Ä Šwitness,€not€Pubill.€€While€prior€convictions€of€Ramos€wouldŠ pĄ  Šclearly€be€material€under€ņņGiglioóó,€it€is€not€so€clear€that€theŠ !l" Šconviction€of€a€person€with€whom€that€witness€did€business€is€alsoŠ Č"$ Šmaterial.€€At€some€point,€the€human€chain€of€bad€behavior€becomesŠ t$Ä& Štoo€attenuated€to€be€relevant€to€the€trial€at€hand.€€Here,€however,Š  &p!( Šwe€are€not€called€upon€to€make€that€determination,€because€in€anyŠ ° Ševent€Misla€was€not€prejudiced.€€Therefore,€the€judge€did€not€abuseŠ \¬ Šher€discretion.Š X Šņ ņC.€Ramrez€TestimonyŠ “  Šą ` ąó óMisla€next€argues€that€the€district€court€should€haveŠ | Ģ Šstruck€the€testimony€of€Alvin€Ramrez,€one€of€the€CAS€principals,Š ( x  Šon€the€grounds€that€he€lacked€personal€knowledge.€€Because€this€wasŠ Ō$  Šan€evidentiary€ruling€to€which€Misla€objected,€our€review€is€forŠ €Š  Šabuse€of€discretion.€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņBrownóó,€450€F.3d€76,€78€(1stŠ ,|  ŠCir.€2006).€€Even€if€the€court€erred,€we€will€not€reverse€if€theŠ Ų( Šerror€is€harmless.€€ņņId.óó€at€79;€ņņseeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņGarcšķ ša„Moralesóó,Š „Ō Š382€F.3d€12,€17€(1st€Cir.€2004)€(error€is€harmless€"if€it€is€highlyŠ 0€ Šprobable€that€the€error€did€not€influence€the€verdict").Š Ü, Šą ` ąRamrez€testified€about€seeing€checks€from€HAOL€to€RamosŠ ˆŲ Šthat€ultimately€ended€up€in€the€hands€of€Cruz€and€Misla.€€RamrezŠ 4„ Štestified€several€times,€however,€that€he€did€not€know€at€the€timeŠ ą0 Šabout€the€intended€use€of€these€specific€checks,€but€only€found€outŠ ŒÜ  Šwhen€the€government€showed€him€the€evidence€that€they€had€gatheredŠ 8!ˆ" Šduring€their€investigation.€€Defense€counsel€objected,€but€theŠ ä"4$ Šdistrict€judge€allowed€the€testimony,€saying€that€Misla€was€free€toŠ $ą& Šcross„examine€Ramrez€about€the€source€of€his€knowledge.€Š <&Œ!( Šą ` ąMisla's€argument€is€thinly€developed,€and€he€cites€to€noŠ č'8#* Šā āparticular€rule€of€evidence€or€cases€supporting€the€propositionŠ ”)ä$, Šthat€to€have€allowed€this€testimony€is€reversible€error.׃#ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś9Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€WeŠ ° Šā ādecline€now€to€explore€all€the€possible€interpretations€of€theŠ \¬ Šargument€since,€in€any€event,€any€potential€error€was€harmless.€Š X ŠDespite€not€knowing€the€specific€purpose€of€the€funds,€RamrezŠ “  Štestified€„„€based€on€his€personal€knowledge€„„€that€he€saw€theŠ ` ° Šchecks;€that€he€knew€that€Ramos€intended€to€pay€Misla;€that€RamosŠ  \  Štold€him€that€"nothing€in€life€is€free€and€everything€costs€money,"Š ø  Štr.€11/25/02€at€16;€and€that€he€assumed€that€the€meeting€they€wereŠ d“  Šable€to€secure€with€Misla€"was€[not]€a€favor€that€was€done€just€toŠ `  Šhelp€us,"€ņņid.óó€at€61.€€Furthermore,€the€jury€heard€explicitly€aboutŠ ¼  Šthe€source€of€his€knowledge,€whether€it€came€during€the€events€inŠ hø Šquestion€or€only€during€later€litigation,€and€thus€had€a€sufficientŠ d Šbasis€to€judge€his€credibility.€€Finally,€the€other€evidenceŠ Ą Šagainst€Misla€was€substantial.€€Given€this,€even€if€it€were€errorŠ l¼ Što€allow€the€testimony,€any€error€was€harmless.€€ņņSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Crim.Š h ŠP.€52(b).Š Ä Šņ ņD.€Insufficient€Evidence€as€to€Counts€2,€3,€4,€and€6ó óŠ pĄ  Šą ` ąMisla€contends€that€the€district€court€erred€in€notŠ 8!ˆ" Šdismissing€Counts€2€(Hobbs€Act€extortion,€18€U.S.C.€šš€1951(a)),€3,Š ä"4$ Š4€(two€counts€of€conspiring€to€launder€money,€18€U.S.C.€ššŠ ° Š1956(a)(1)(B)(i),€(a)(3)(A)€&€(B),€and€(h)),€and€6€(witnessŠ \¬ Štampering,€18€U.S.C.€šš€1512).€€He€avers€that€there€was€insufficientŠ X Ševidence€to€sustain€a€guilty€verdict€on€each€count.€€We€reviewŠ “  Šattacks€on€the€sufficiency€of€evidence€supporting€jury€verdicts€ņņdeóóŠ ` ° Šņņnovoóó.€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņWashingtonóó,€434€F.3d€7,€15€(1st€Cir.€2006).€Š  \  ŠIn€doing€so,€we€review€the€evidence€"in€the€light€most€favorable€toŠ ø  Šthe€prosecution,"€considering€whether€"any€rational€trier€of€factŠ d“  Šcould€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aŠ `  Šreasonable€doubt."€€ņņId.óó€Š ¼  Šą ` ąņņ1.€Count€2óóŠ hø Šą ` ąTo€challenge€his€conviction€for€extortion€under€color€ofŠ d Šofficial€right,€Misla€latches€onto€a€clerical€error€in€theŠ Ą Šindictment.€€The€indictment€names€Count€2€as€"Interference€withŠ l¼ ŠCommerce€by€Extortion€Induced€by€Economic€Fear€ņņandóó€Under€Color€ofŠ h ŠOfficial€Right"€(emphasis€added).€€Therefore,€Misla€argues,€theŠ Ä Šgovernment€was€bound€to€prove€both€economic€fear€ņņandóó€color€ofŠ pĄ  Šofficial€right,€not€just€one€or€the€other,€which€is€all€that€theŠ !l" Šstatue€requires.€€ņņSeeóó€18€U.S.C.€šš€1951(b)(2)€("The€term€'extortion'Š Č"$ Šmeans€the€obtaining€of€property€from€another,€with€his€consent,Š t$Ä& Šinduced€by€wrongful€use€of€actual€or€threatened€force,€violence,€orŠ  &p!( Šfear,€ņņoróó€under€color€of€official€right"€(emphasis€added)).׃$ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś10Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ Ģ'#* Šą ` ąWe€have€held€that:Š ° ŠŅ°ŅҰŅÓÓWhere€a€statute€.€.€.€sets€forth€several€different€meansŠ \¬ Šby€which€an€offense€may€be€committed,€it€is€permissibleŠ 2‚ Šfor€a€count€in€an€indictment€to€allege€all€or€several€ofŠ X Šthese€means€in€the€conjunctive.€€A€conviction€on€such€aŠ Ž. Šcount€will€stand€if€the€evidence€establishing€one€or€moreŠ “  Šof€the€means€of€commission€alleged€is€sufficient€toŠ Š Ś Šsupport€a€jury€verdict.Š ` ° ŠĢҰńĖŅҰćĖŅÓ’ĖÓņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņGarcia„Torresóó,€341€F.3d€61,€66€(1st€Cir.€2003)Š  \  Š(quoting€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņBarbatoóó,€471€F.2d€918,€922€n.3€(1st€Cir.Š ø  Š1973)).׃%fׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś11Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ d“  Šą ` ąWorking€from€the€incorrect€assumption€that€the€governmentŠ `  Šhad€to€prove€both€elements,€Misla€argues€the€insufficiency€only€ofŠ ¼  Šthe€"economic€fear"€element,€but€does€not€challenge€the€evidenceŠ hø Šfor€the€"under€color€of€official€right"€element.€€The€judgeŠ d Šcorrectly€instructed€the€jury€in€the€disjunctive€(following€theŠ Ą Šlanguage€of€the€statute,€not€the€indictment),€and€thus€a€jury€couldŠ l¼ Šā āhave€convicted€Misla€by€finding€"color€of€official€right"€extortionŠ h Šalone.€€That€evidence€is€unchallenged€here€and€this€fact€isŠ ° Šsufficient€to€dispose€of€the€issue.׃&ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś12Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ \¬ Šā āą ` ąņņ2.€Counts€3€and€4óóŠ X Šą ` ąMisla's€challenge€to€the€money€laundering€charge€is€thatŠ “  Šthe€government€described€the€same€acts€as€both€extortion€and€moneyŠ ` ° Šlaundering.€€Because€he€was€charged€with€laundering€the€proceeds€ofŠ  \  Šthe€extortion,€the€two€acts€must€be€distinct,€he€argues,€andŠ ø  Štherefore€there€was€insufficient€evidence€to€sustain€a€convictionŠ d“  Šfor€money€laundering.Š `  Šą ` ąTo€prove€conspiracy€to€commit€money€laundering,€theŠ ¼  Šgovernment€was€required€to€show€that€Misla€agreed€with€one€or€moreŠ hø Šco„conspirators€to€1)€knowingly€conduct€a€financial€transaction€2)Š d Šinvolving€funds€that€Misla€knew€to€be€the€proceeds€of€some€form€ofŠ Ą Šunlawful€activity€and€3)€that€were€in€fact€the€proceeds€of€aŠ l¼ Š"specified€unlawful€activity,"€and€4)€that€Misla€knew€theŠ h Štransactions€to€be€designed€in€whole€or€in€part€to€conceal€orŠ Ä Šdisguise€the€nature,€location,€source,€ownership,€or€control€of€theŠ pĄ  Šā āproceeds€of€such€unlawful€activity.€€18€U.S.C.€šš€1956(a)(1)(B)(i);Š !l" Šņņseeóó,€ņņe.g.óó,€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņCruzado„Laureanoóó,€404€F.3d€470,€483Š ° Š(1st€Cir.€2005).€€Š \¬ Šā āą ` ą"The€laundering€of€funds€cannot€occur€in€the€sameŠ X Štransaction€through€which€those€funds€first€became€tainted€byŠ “  Šcrime."€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņRichardóó,€234€F.3d€763,€769€(1st€Cir.Š ` ° Š2000).€€However,€this€is€"not€a€requirement€that€the€underlyingŠ  \  Šcrime€must€be€fully€completed€before€any€money€laundering€canŠ ø  Šbegin."€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņCastellinióó,€392€F.3d€35,€48€(1st€Cir.Š d“  Š2004).€€The€two€crimes€need€not€be€"entirely€separate€in€time."€Š `  ŠņņId.óó€Š ¼  Šą ` ąMisla€argues€that,€until€the€money€reached€his€hands,€theŠ hø Šact€of€extortion€was€not€completed,€and€that€since,€once€the€moneyŠ d Šreached€him,€there€was€no€effort€to€conceal€it,€there€was€no€moneyŠ Ą Šlaundering.€€Any€of€the€acts€that€took€place€prior€to€his€receivingŠ l¼ Šthe€money,€he€argues,€cannot€suffice€to€be€money€laundering€becauseŠ h Šthere€were€no€proceeds€of€extortion€yet€to€conceal.€€The€governmentŠ Ä Šresponds€that€the€extortion€was€completed€when€Ramos,€a€co„Š pĄ  Šconspirator,€received€the€funds€from€HAOL,€Ramrez,€and€De€Jess,Š !l" Šand€that€Ramos€and€Misla€took€steps€at€that€point€to€conceal€theŠ Č"$ Štransactions,€including€making€some€checks€payable€to€Misla's€sonsŠ t$Ä& Šand€an€aide.Š  &p!( Šą ` ąThat€Misla€attempted€to€conceal€the€source€of€the€moneyŠ Ģ'#* Šņņbeforeóó€it€actually€came€into€his€possession€cannot€relieve€him€ofŠ x)Č$, Šcriminal€liability€for€money€laundering.€€As€we€said€in€ņņCastellinióó,Š $+t&. Šfocusing€on€simultaneity€would€"obscure€the€real€principle"€behind€Š ° Šseparating€the€offenses,€ņņvizóó.€"that€'money€laundering€criminalizesŠ \¬ Ša€transaction€in€proceeds,€not€the€transaction€that€creates€theŠ X Šproceeds.'"€€ņņId.óó€at€38€(quoting€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņMankariousóó,€151Š “  ŠF.3d€694,€705€(7th€Cir.€1998)).€€The€transaction€that€created€theŠ ` ° Šproceeds€„„€the€act€of€extortion€„„€is€sufficiently€distinct€fromŠ  \  Šthe€side€transactions€done€to€hide€the€trail€„„€e.g.,€writingŠ ø  Šchecks€to€relatives€and€aides€„„€even€if€both€crimes€were€completeŠ d“  Šonly€upon€the€arrival€of€the€funds€in€Misla's€hands.Š `  Šą ` ąFurthermore,€we€should€not€forget€that€here€Misla€wasŠ ¼  Šcharged€with€ņņconspiracyóó€to€commit€both€money€laundering€andŠ hø Šextortion,€and€therefore€is€liable€for€the€acts€of€his€co„Š d Šconspirators.€€Indeed,€the€indictment€specifically€references€theŠ Ą Šfacts€of€Count€1€(the€conspiracy€to€extort)€to€describe€the€sourceŠ l¼ Šof€the€unlawful€funds€applicable€to€both€Counts€3€and€4.€€SinceŠ h ŠMisla€is€liable€for€the€acts€of€his€co„conspirators,€such€as€Ramos,Š Ä Ša€reasonable€jury€could€have€found€that€the€act€of€extortion€wasŠ pĄ  Šsufficiently€complete€upon€Ramos€taking€control€of€the€funds€fromŠ !l" ŠHAOL.€€Any€of€the€concealing€transactions€that€follow€thus€wouldŠ Č"$ Šclearly€involve€proceeds€of€unlawful€activity.ņņŠ t$Ä& Šą ` ą3.€Count€6óóŠ  &p!( Šą ` ąFinally,€Misla€challenges€his€conviction€for€witnessŠ Ģ'#* Štampering,€in€violation€of€18€U.S.C.€šš€1512(b)(1),€(2),€and€(3).€Š x)Č$, ŠAfter€Ramos€had€agreed€to€cooperate€with€the€government,€heŠ $+t&. Šrecorded€conversations€with€Misla€in€which€Misla€discussed€ways€toŠ ° Šconceal€the€crime,€including€having€Ramos€say€that€he€had€actuallyŠ \¬ Šbeen€repaying€a€loan€to€Misla,€and€having€Ramos€leave€Puerto€Rico.€Š X ŠMisla€argues€that€because€Misla's€tampering€was€directed€at€Ramos,Š “  Ša€"plan€instituted€by€conspirators€to€provide€a€false€story€toŠ ` ° Šprotect€themselves€cannot€constitute€witness€tampering."€€Def.Š  \  ŠBrief€at€45.€€He€claims€that,€because€he€did€not€know€that€RamosŠ ø  Šwas€already€cooperating,€he€did€not€have€the€necessary€intent€toŠ d“  Šcommit€the€crime€of€witness€tampering.Š `  Šą ` ąSection€1512(b)€states,€in€relevant€part:Š ¼  ŠŅ°ŅҰŅÓÓWhoever€knowingly€.€.€.€corruptly€persuades€anotherŠ hø Šperson,€or€attempts€to€do€so,€.€.€.€with€intent€toŠ >Ž Šinfluence,€delay,€or€prevent€the€testimony€of€any€personŠ d Šin€any€official€proceeding€[or]€cause€or€induce€anyŠ ź: Šperson€to€withhold€testimony€.€.€.€shall€be€fined€underŠ Ą Šthis€title€or€imprisoned€not€more€than€ten€years,€orŠ –ę Šboth.׃)ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś13Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׹ Ø ąÓ„źÓŠ l¼ ŠŅ°—źŅҰ‰źŅIn€his€brief,€Misla€argues€that€he€could€not€have€known€that€RamosŠ h Šwas€a€"witness,"€given€that€he€believed€they€were€still€co„Š Ä Šconspirators,€and€thus€he€lacked€the€necessary€intent.€€ThatŠ pĄ  Šargument€is€off€the€mark,€since€it€focuses€on€the€status€of€theŠ !l" Šperson,€rather€than€the€proceedings.€€The€key€is€not€whether€theŠ Č"$ Šdefendant€knows€or€doesn't€know€that€someone€is€a€"witness"€(a€termŠ t$Ä& Šnot€in€the€text€of€the€statute),€but€rather€whether€he€is€intendingŠ  &p!( Što€head€off€the€possibility€of€testimony€in€an€"officialŠ ° Šproceeding."Š \¬ Šą ` ąWhat's€necessary€is€that€there€be€sufficient€evidenceŠ X Šthat€the€defendant€knew€that€an€official€proceeding׃+ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś14Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀had€begun,€orŠ “  Šthat€he€believed€one€to€be€likely€in€the€future,€and€that€heŠ ` ° Šintended€to€influence€any€possible€testimony€in€that€proceeding.€Š  \  ŠņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņFrankhauseróó,€80€F.3d€641,€652€(1st€Cir.€1996)Š ø  Š(analyzing€šš€1512(b)(2)(B));€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņKelleyóó,€36€F.3d€1118,Š d“  Š1128€(D.C.€Cir.€1994)€("The€statute€only€requires€that€the€jury€beŠ `  Šable€reasonably€to€infer€from€the€circumstances€that€[theŠ ¼  Šdefendant],€fearing€that€a€grand€jury€proceeding€had€been€or€mightŠ hø Šbe€instituted,€corruptly€persuaded€persons€with€the€intent€toŠ d Šinfluence€their€possible€testimony€in€such€a€proceeding.").€Š Ą ŠHowever,€while€the€proceeding€need€not€be€imminent,€18€U.S.C.€ššŠ l¼ Š1512(e)(1),€it€must€be€more€than€merely€foreseeable,€ņņFrankhauseróó,Š h Š80€F.3d€at€652.€€To€hold€otherwise€would€allow€a€witness€tamperingŠ Ä Šcharge€in,€e.g.,€any€conspiracy€where€the€co„conspirators€agreed€toŠ pĄ  Ša€story€at€the€outset€of€the€conspiracy,€merely€because€they€hadŠ !l" Šforeseen€a€possibility€of€eventual€arrest€and€trial.€€This€is€theŠ Č"$ Šclass€of€cases€in€which€Misla€would€like€to€place€himself.Š t$Ä& Šą ` ąHis€efforts€to€do€so€are€unsuccessful.€€There€wasŠ  &p!( Šsubstantial€evidence€that€Misla€believed€an€investigation€to€beŠ Ģ'#* Šlikely€and€forthcoming€when€he€began€his€attempts€to€persuadeŠ ° ŠRamos.€€Indeed,€Ramos€testified,€regarding€his€first€tapedŠ \¬ Šconversation€with€Misla:Š X ŠŅ°ŅҰŅÓÓA.ą ` ą[Ramos]€.€.€.€So€I€went€to€Mr.€Edison€Misla€and€IŠ “  Štold€him,€"Edison,€we€are€being€investigated."Š Š Ś ŠĢHe€said,€"I'm€going€to€send€my€attorney€to€investigate€atŠ 6 †  Šthe€U.S.€Attorney's€Office€if€I'm€a€target."Š  \  ŠĢ.€.€.€Š ø  ŠĢQ.€ą ` ą[Prosecution]€Sir,€when€you€used€the€word€target,Š d“  Šwhat€do€you€mean€by€that?Š :Š  ŠĢA.€ą ` ąA€target€is€the€object€of€an€investigation€beingŠ ę6 Šheld.Š ¼  ŠĢQ.€ą ` ąDid€you€continue€having€conversations€with€EdisonŠ hø ŠMisla€concerning€this€investigation?Š >Ž ŠĢA.€ą ` ąThat's€right€.€.€.€.€€And€then€one€or€two€days€laterŠ ź: Šhe€told€me€that€he€had€sent€his€attorney,€and€hisŠ Ą Šattorneys€had€gone€to€the€federal€U.S.€Attorney's€OfficeŠ –ę Šand€spoken€to€prosecutor€Gil€and€yourself,€and€that€youŠ l¼ Šhad€told€him€that€Mr.€Misla€was€not€a€target.Š B’ ŠĢҰÉ÷ŅҰ×÷ŅÓå÷ÓTr.€12/2/02€at€13.€€Š ī> Šą ` ąIt€is€thus€clear€that€Misla€was€aware€of€an€ongoingŠ šź Šinvestigation€and€the€likelihood€of€a€future€official€proceeding,Š F –! Šand€any€of€the€later€conversations€with€Ramos€were€directed€atŠ ņ!B# Šinfluencing€or€preventing€Ramos's€possible€testimony€in€such€aŠ ž#ī% Šproceeding.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņFreemanóó,€208€F.3d€332,€338€(1stŠ J%š ' ŠCir.€2000)€(finding€evidence€sufficient€where€defendant€knew€ofŠ ö&F") Šinvestigation,€and€knew€that€his€own€conduct€might€subject€him€toŠ ¢(ņ#+ Šcriminal€liability).€€It€is€immaterial€whether€or€not€Misla€knew€orŠ N*ž%- Šbelieved€that€Ramos€was€already€cooperating.€€Indeed,€it'sŠ ś+J'/ Šimmaterial€whether€Ramos€actually€was€cooperating,€or€even€that€heŠ ° Šactually€testify€at€all.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņRiskenóó,€788€F.2dŠ \¬ Š1361,€1369€(8th€Cir.€1986)€("witness€status€is€expressly€notŠ X Šrequired€under€šš€1512,€which€specifically€refers€to€'persons'€andŠ “  Šnot€'witnesses'").׃,ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś15Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀€There€was€sufficient€evidence€for€the€jury€toŠ ` ° Šbelieve€that€Misla,€fearing€the€results€of€an€investigation€that€heŠ  \  Šknew€was€ongoing,€attempted€to€persuade€Ramos€to€change€or€withholdŠ ø  Štestimony,€and€that€ends€the€matter.Š d“  Šņ ņE.€Sentencingó óŠ `  Šą ` ąņņ1.€Guidelines€CalculationóóŠ Ų( Šą ` ąMisla€contends€that€the€district€court€erred€inŠ „Ō Šcalculating€his€Sentencing€Guidelines€range.€€In€particular,€heŠ 0€ Šchallenges€the€enhancement€for€more€than€one€bribe€being€involved,Š Ü, Šthe€imposition€of€a€fine,€and€the€enhancement€for€the€amount€ofŠ ˆŲ Šloss.€€These€objections€were€properly€preserved€for€appeal.€€WeŠ 4„ Šreview€the€district€court's€interpretation€of€the€sentencingŠ ą0 Šguidelines€ņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€and€the€factual€findings€underlying€the€sentenceŠ ŒÜ  Šfor€clear€error.€€ņņSeeóó,€ņņe.g.óó,€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņMeadaóó,€408€F.3d€14,Š 8!ˆ" Š24€(1st€Cir.€2005).€€Š ä"4$ Šą ` ąSection€2C1.1(b)(1)€of€the€Sentencing€Guidelines€callsŠ $ą& Šfor€a€two„level€increase€to€the€base€offense€level€for€extortionŠ <&Œ!( Šwhere€more€than€one€bribe€is€involved.€€Section€1B1.3€states€that,Š ° Šwhen€calculating€the€base€offense€levels€under€Chapter€Two€of€theŠ \¬ ŠGuidelines,€a€sentencing€court€should€include,€"in€the€case€of€aŠ X Šjointly€undertaken€criminal€activity€.€.€.€,€all€reasonablyŠ “  Šforeseeable€acts€and€omissions€of€others€in€furtherance€of€theŠ ` ° Šjointly€undertaken€criminal€activity."€€Misla€contends€here€that€heŠ  \  Šshould€not€be€held€accountable€for€the€bribes€of€his€co„defendantŠ ø  ŠCruzņ ņó ó,€because€he€had€no€knowledge€of€them.Š d“  Šą ` ąMisla€raised€this€issue€below,€and€the€district€courtŠ `  Šheld€that,€even€if€Misla€didn't€know€about€specific€bribes,€it€wasŠ ¼  Šreasonably€foreseeable€to€him€that€Cruz€would€receive€a€bribe.€€TheŠ hø Šcourt€pointed€to€a€lunch€meeting€arranged€by€a€lobbyist€whom€CASŠ d Šand€Ramos€had€hired€to€introduce€Ramos,€De€Jess,€and€Ramrez€toŠ Ą ŠCruz,€the€head€of€the€legal€department€at€PRDH€and€central€toŠ l¼ Šgetting€PRDH's€approval€for€CAS's€purchase€of€the€CHC€managementŠ h Šcontract.€€Cruz€would€eventually€take€a€bribe€from€the€group€inŠ Ä Šorder€to€secure€approval.€Ramos€testifed:Š pĄ  ŠŅ°ŅҰŅÓÓQ.€[Prosecution]€Do€you€know,€sir€„„€if€you€know€„„€didŠ !l" ŠJos€Gerardo€Cruz€Arroyo€request€anything€in€exchangeŠ ņ!B# Šfrom€Dr.€DeJšé šsus€[sic]€for€giving€the€okay€to€thisŠ Č"$ Štransaction?Š ž#ī% ŠĢA.€[Ramos]€All€I€remember€is€a€conversation€with€Dr.Š J%š ' ŠDeJšé šsus€where€he€told€me€that€he€was€taking€care€ofŠ  &p!( Ševerything.Š ö&F") ŠĢ.€.€.€Š ¢(ņ#+ ŠĢQ.€When€Dr.€DeJšé šsus€told€you€he€was€taking€care€ofŠ N*ž%- Ševerything,€did€he€explain€to€you€what€he€was€taking€careŠ $+t&. Šof€and€what€he€was€doing?Š ś+J'/ ЇA.€At€that€moment,€he€didn't,€but€later€on€I€realizedŠ ° Šwhat€was€going€on.Š †Ö ŠĢQ.€What€did€you€realize€later€on€that€was€going€on?Š 2‚ ŠĢA.€Well,€I€discovered€that€a€car€was€being€paid€for€him.€Š Ž. ŠAnd€then€months€later,€after€he€left€in€December€theŠ “  ŠDepartment€of€Health,€I€realized€that€he€had€been€forcedŠ Š Ś Što€get€a€contract€and€work€with€the€CAS€ManagementŠ ` ° Šoffice.Š 6 †  ŠĢQ.€[Prosecution]€When€you€say€he€had€been€forced,€who€isŠ ā 2  Š"he"?Š ø  ŠĢA.€[Ramos]€Dr.€DeJšé šsus€Toro€had€forced€the€management€toŠ d“  Šgive€work€to€attorney€Jos€Gerardo€Cruz.Š :Š  ŠĢҰ! ŅҰ/ ŅÓ= ÓTr.€11/27/02€at€8„9.€€Misla€argued€at€sentencing,€based€onŠ ę6 Štestimony€in€the€case,€that€Ramos€only€mentioned€Cruz€to€MislaŠ ’ā Šonce,€and€that€it€was€ņņprioróó€to€Cruz€receiving€the€car€RamosŠ >Ž Štestified€to€above.€€Therefore,€he€argues,€the€only€time€MislaŠ ź: Šheard€anything€about€Cruz,€he€could€not€have€heard€about€a€bribe.Š –ę Šą ` ąThe€court€held€that€a€later€piece€of€testimony€by€RamosŠ B’ Šabout€that€meeting€with€Misla€called€that€inference€into€question:Š ī> ŠŅ°ŅҰŅÓÓQ.€So€on€this€first€occasionņņóó,€sir,€what€is€it€that€youŠ šź Šexplained,€to€the€best€of€your€recollection,€to€EdisonŠ pĄ  ŠMisla?Š F –! ŠĢA.€I€called€him€and€explained€to€him,€explained€what€ourŠ ņ!B# Šobjective€was,€which€was€to€purchase€the€hospital,€thatŠ Č"$ Šhe€knew€about€it,€that€we€had€already€spoken€to€FreddyŠ ž#ī% ŠValentin,€and€that€the€contact€had€already€been€made€withŠ t$Ä& Š[Jos]€Gerardo€Cruz,€with€attorney€[Jos]€Gerardo€Cruz,Š J%š ' Šand€that€all€that€was€left€was€for€us€to€obtain€the€favorŠ  &p!( Šfrom€the€Government€Development€Bank.Š ö&F") ŠĢҰzŅҰlŅÓˆÓņņId.óó€at€24.€€The€court€held€that,€because€of€this€meeting€andŠ ¢(ņ#+ Šā āconversation,€it€was€reasonably€foreseeable€to€Misla€that€Cruz€wasŠ N*ž%- Šbeing€bribed,€like€himself,€for€his€participation€in€the€scheme.€Š ° ŠWe€cannot€say€that€this€finding€was€clearly€erroneous.€Š \¬ Šā āą ` ąMisla€next€argues€that€the€court€erred€in€fining€himŠ X Š$12,500,€the€bottom€of€the€applicable€range€of€$12,500€to€$500,000.€Š “  ŠUnder€the€Sentencing€Guidelines,€"the€court€shall€impose€a€fine€inŠ ` ° Šall€cases,€except€where€the€defendant€establishes€that€he€is€unableŠ  \  Što€pay€and€is€not€likely€to€become€able€to€pay€any€fine."€€USSG€ššŠ ø  Š5E1.2.€€We€review€a€sentencing€court's€imposition€of€fines€forŠ d“  Šabuse€of€discretion.€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņSavoieóó,€985€F.2d€612,€620Š `  Š(1st€Cir.€1993).€€"The€defendant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstratingŠ ¼  Šthat€his€case€warrants€an€exception€to€the€rule€that€a€fine€beŠ hø Šimposed."€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņPeppeóó,€80€F.3d€19,€22€(1st€Cir.€1996).€Š d ŠMisla€concedes€that€he€withheld€information€on€his€finances€duringŠ Ą Šthe€preparation€of€the€presentence€report€(PSR).€€Because€of€this,Š l¼ Šthe€court€held,€he€had€not€met€his€burden€of€showing€that€he€wouldŠ h Šbe€unable€to€pay.€€Š Ä Šą ` ąMisla€now€points€to€his€objection€to€the€PSR,€in€which€heŠ pĄ  Šstated€that€his€"only€source€of€income€to€be€able€to€pay€a€fineŠ !l" Šwould€be€his€monthly€pension.€€The€pension€is€used€to€satisfy€hisŠ Č"$ Šdebts,€as€already€listed€in€the€report."€€The€judge€did€not€abuseŠ t$Ä& Šher€discretion€in€deciding€that€this€was€insufficient€to€meetŠ  &p!( ŠMisla's€burden.Š Ģ'#* Šą ` ąFinally,€Misla€argues€that€the€combination€of€the€Š x)Č$, Š$12,500€fine€and€the€$147,000€forfeitureņņóó€violates€the€EighthŠ $+t&. ŠAmendment.€€We€pause€only€to€note€that€forfeiture€will€violate€theŠ ° ŠEighth€Amendment€only€if€it€is€"grossly€disproportional€to€theŠ \¬ Šgravity€of€the€defendant's€offense."€€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņBajakajianóó,Š X Š524€U.S.€321,€328€(1998);€ņņseeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņHeldemanóó,€402€F.3dŠ “  Š220,€223€(1st€Cir.€2005).€€As€we€discuss€in€Section€II.E,€ņņinfraóó,€itŠ ` ° Šis€not€grossly€disproportional,€and€neither€is€its€combination€withŠ  \  Ša€fine€that€is€less€than€three€percent€of€the€allowable€fine€underŠ ø  Šthe€Guidelines.Š d“  Šą ` ąņņ2.€Booker€ErroróóŠ `  Šą ` ąMisla€argues€that€the€district€court€erred€in€sentencingŠ ¼  Šhim€under€a€mandatory€guidelines€system.€€Here,€he€relies€on€theŠ hø ŠSupreme€Court's€decision€in€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņBookeróó,€543€U.S.€220Š d Š(2005).€€However,€he€concedes€that€he€did€not€preserve€this€claimŠ Ą Šof€error.€€As€a€result,€our€review€is€only€for€plain€error.€€ņņUnitedŠ l¼ ŠStatesóó€v.€ņņAntonakopoulosóó,€399€F.3d€68,€75€(1st€Cir.€2005).€€We€willŠ h Šfind€such€error€only€if€"the€defendant€[points]€to€circumstancesŠ Ä Šcreating€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€district€court€wouldŠ pĄ  Šimpose€a€different€sentence€more€favorable€to€the€defendant€underŠ !l" Šthe€new€'advisory€Guidelines'€ņņBookeróó€regime."€€ņņId.óó€€First,€we€noteŠ Č"$ Šthat€Misla's€sentence€of€71€months'€imprisonment€is€right€in€theŠ t$Ä& Šmiddle€of€the€Guidelines€range€of€63€to€78€months,€evidence€thatŠ  &p!( Šthe€judge€was€comfortable€with€the€Guidelines€range.€€Furthermore,Š Ģ'#* ŠMisla€raises€only€the€same€objections€he€made€to€the€GuidelinesŠ x)Č$, Šcalculation€itself.€€Those€issues€having€been€resolved€in€favor€ofŠ $+t&. Šthe€government,€we€see€no€reasonable€probability€that€the€judgeŠ ° Šwould€have€sentenced€differently€under€an€"advisory€Guidelines"Š \¬ Šsystem.Š X Šņ ņF.€Forfeitureó óŠ “  Šą ` ąņņ1.€Money€JudgmentóóŠ | Ģ Šą ` ąMisla's€challenge€to€the€forfeiture€order€involves€aŠ ( x  Šquestion€that€often€comes€up€in€cases€where€the€government€seeksŠ Ō$  Šcriminal€forfeiture€of€cash,€rather€than€specific€property.€Š €Š  ŠPursuant€to€Rule€7(c)(2)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€CriminalŠ ,|  ŠProcedure,€the€government€gave€notice€in€the€indictment€of€anŠ Ų( Šintent€to€seek€forfeiture€of€all€property€involved€in,€or€traceableŠ „Ō Što,€the€money€laundering€offense.€€It€later€filed€a€Bill€ofŠ 0€ ŠParticulars€pointing€to€specific€property€it€alleged€was€traceableŠ Ü, Što€the€money€laundering€proceeds,€including€an€apartment€inŠ ˆŲ ŠLuquillo,€Puerto€Rico.€€The€government€did€not€mention€in€theŠ 4„ Šindictment€any€intent€to€seek€substitute€assets€in€lieu€of€theŠ ą0 Šproperty€it€named€as€traceable€to€the€proceeds€of€the€offense.Š ŒÜ  Šą ` ąAfter€the€verdict,€the€government€moved€for€a€judgment€ofŠ 8!ˆ" Šforfeiture€under€Rule€32.2€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€CriminalŠ ä"4$ ŠProcedure,€and€a€hearing€was€held.€€At€the€hearing,€the€governmentŠ $ą& Šstated€an€intention€to€go€after€only€cash,€rather€than€the€realŠ <&Œ!( Šproperty€that€had€been€in€the€Bill€of€Particulars.€€The€governmentŠ č'8#* Šalso€stated€that€it€did€not€intend€to€seek€forfeiture€of€anyŠ ”)ä$, Šsubstitute€assets.€€Misla€argued€that€the€government€was€not€in€aŠ @+&. Šposition€to€ask€for€forfeiture€of€cash€because€they€had€notŠ ° Šidentified€any€particular€pool€of€cash€that€could€be€traceable€toŠ \¬ Šthe€money€laundering.€€The€court€ordered€forfeiture€of€$147,400,Š X Špointing€to€specific€checks€that€the€government€had€provided€asŠ “  Šexhibits.Š ` ° Šą ` ąOn€appeal,€Misla€makes€a€subtle,€but€ultimatelyŠ  \  Šunavailing,€argument.€€He€says€that€any€attempt€by€the€governmentŠ ø  Što€seize€cash€is€equivalent€to€seizing€substitute€assets,€becauseŠ d“  Šthe€original€proceeds€of€the€offense€are€no€longer€available,€andŠ `  Šthat€is€something€that€the€government€expressly€declined€anŠ ¼  Šinterest€in€doing.€€It€being€therefore€impossible€to€execute€thisŠ hø Šforfeiture€order,€he€argues,€the€order€should€not€have€been€issuedŠ d Šin€the€first€place.€€He€also€argues€that€it€would€be€too€late€nowŠ Ą Šfor€the€government€to€try€to€seek€any€substitute€assets,€since€heŠ l¼ Šwas€given€no€notice€in€the€indictment€of€an€intent€to€do€so.Š h Šą ` ąAs€to€his€first€point,€we€have€said€thatŠ Ä ŠŅ°ŅҰŅÓÓ[a]€money€judgment€permits€the€government€to€collect€onŠ pĄ  Šthe€forfeiture€order€in€the€same€way€that€a€successfulŠ F –! Šplaintiff€collects€a€money€judgment€from€a€civilŠ !l" Šdefendant.€Thus,€even€if€a€defendant€does€not€haveŠ ņ!B# Šsufficient€funds€to€cover€the€forfeiture€at€the€time€ofŠ Č"$ Šthe€conviction,€the€government€may€seize€future€assets€toŠ ž#ī% Šsatisfy€the€order.€Š t$Ä& ŠĢҰ}4ŅҰ‹4ŅÓ™4ÓņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņHallóó,€434€F.3d€42,€59€(1st€Cir.€2006);€ņņseeóó€ņņUnitedŠ  &p!( ŠStatesóó€v.€ņņCandelaria„Silvaóó,€166€F.3d€19,€42€(1st€Cir.€1999)Š Ģ'#* Š(š š[C]riminal€forfeiture€may€take€several€forms€[including]€an€ņņinóóŠ x)Č$, Šņņpersonamóó€judgment€against€the€defendant€for€the€amount€of€money€theŠ $+t&. Šdefendant€obtained€as€proceeds€of€the€offense.šš).€€Here,€theŠ ° Šgovernment€sought€a€forfeiture€judgment€under€Rule€32.2,€whichŠ \¬ Šprovides€that€"[i]f€the€government€seeks€a€personal€money€judgment,Š X Šthe€court€must€determine€the€amount€of€money€that€the€defendantŠ “  Šwill€be€ordered€to€pay."€€Fed.€R.€Crim.€P.€32.2(b)(1).€€This€is€inŠ ` ° Šcontrast€to€where€the€government€seeks€forfeiture€of€"specificŠ  \  Šproperty,"€in€which€case€the€government€has€to€show€a€"nexusŠ ø  Šbetween€the€property€and€the€offense."€€ņņId.óóŠ d“  Šą ` ąMisla€is€mistaken,€therefore,€in€arguing€that€aŠ `  Šforfeiture€order€can€apply€only€to€the€specific€proceeds€of€theŠ ¼  Šoffense.€€If€the€government€seeks,€and€the€court€grants,€a€moneyŠ hø Šjudgment׃-ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś16Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀as€part€of€the€forfeiture€order,€then€"the€governmentŠ d Šneed€not€prove€that€the€defendant€actually€has€the€forfeitedŠ Ą Šproceeds€in€his€possession€at€the€time€of€conviction."€€ņņHallóó,€434Š l¼ ŠF.3d€at€59.€€If€the€government€has€proven€that€there€was€at€oneŠ h Špoint€an€amount€of€cash€that€was€directly€traceable€to€the€offense,Š Ä Šand€that€thus€would€be€forfeitable€under€18€U.S.C.€šš€982(a),€thatŠ pĄ  Šis€sufficient€for€a€court€to€issue€a€money€judgment,€for€which€theŠ !l" Šdefendant€will€be€fully€liable€whether€or€not€he€still€has€theŠ ° Šoriginal€corpus€of€tainted€funds€„„€indeed,€whether€or€not€he€hasŠ \¬ Šany€funds€at€all.Š X Šą ` ąThe€question€of€how€the€government€can€ņņenforceóó€thatŠ “  Šjudgment€is€a€somewhat€different€question,€however.€€There€is€aŠ ` ° Šsplit€of€authority€as€to€whether€the€government€can€seize€assetsŠ  \  Šwith€a€money€judgment€just€as€any€judgment€creditor€could,€orŠ ø  Šwhether€the€government€must€follow€the€substitute€assets€provisionsŠ d“  Šof€21€U.S.C.€šš€853(p)׃*ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś17Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׀(we€discuss€the€dispute€briefly€below).€Š `  ŠHere,€however,€we€need€not€answer€that€question,€because€it€doesŠ ¼  Šnot€appear€from€the€record€that€the€government€has€yet€taken€anyŠ hø Šaction€to€enforce€the€judgment.€€We€note,€however,€that,€contraryŠ d Što€Misla's€assertion,€the€government€would€not€be€constrained€fromŠ Ą Šseeking€forfeiture€of€substitute€assets€under€šš€853(p)€in€theŠ l¼ Šfuture.€€Misla€argues€that€the€government's€disclaimer€at€theŠ h Šforfeiture€hearing€of€an€intent€to€seek€substitute€assets,€coupledŠ Ä Šwith€the€lack€of€any€notice€of€an€intent€to€do€so€in€theŠ pĄ  Šindictment,€would€be€fatal€to€any€later€attempts€to€go€afterŠ !l" Šsubstitute€assets.€€If€this€were€true,€Misla's€objection€to€theŠ Č"$ Šforfeiture€order€would€have€some€teeth.€€But€it€is€not€true.€Š t$Ä& Šą ` ą"Criminal€forfeiture€orders€are€something€of€a€mongrel,"Š  &p!( ŠņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņHurleyóó,€63€F.3d€1,€23€(1st€Cir.€1995),€and€thisŠ Ģ'#* Šfact€seems€to€have€confused€Misla.€€Although€the€government€mustŠ ° Šinclude€in€the€indictment€notice€of€which€property€it€plans€to€seekŠ \¬ Šforfeiture€of,€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€7(c)(2),€that€notice€is€only€as€toŠ X Šparticular€property,€not€as€to€particular€statutory€elements.€€EvenŠ “  Šthough€it€must€be€mentioned€in€the€indictment,€forfeiture€is€not€aŠ ` ° Šsubstantive€element€of€an€offense,€but€is€rather€"an€element€of€theŠ  \  Šsentence€imposed€ņņfollowingóó€conviction."€€ņņLibrettióó€v.€ņņUnited€Statesóó,Š ø  Š516€U.S.€29,€38„39€(1995)€(emphasis€in€original);€ņņseeóó€ņņUnited€StatesóóŠ d“  Šv.€ņņMoffitt,€Zwerling€&€Kemler,€P.C.óó,€83€F.3d€660,€664„65€(4th€Cir.Š `  Š1996).€€Section€982€says€simply€that€"[t]he€court,€in€imposingŠ ¼  Šsentence€.€.€.€shall€order"€the€forfeiture€of€property€"involvedŠ hø Šin"€or€"traceable€to"€the€offense.€€18€U.S.C.€šš€982(a)(1).€ņņóó€And€inŠ d Šcases€where,€ņņinteróó€ņņaliaóó,€the€original€property€"cannot€be€locatedŠ Ą Šupon€the€exercise€of€due€diligence"€or€"has€been€transferred€orŠ l¼ Šsold€to,€or€deposited€with,€a€third€party"€then€"the€court€shallŠ h Šorder€the€forfeiture€of€any€other€property€of€the€defendant."€€21Š Ä ŠU.S.C.€šš€853(p)(1)(A)€&€(B),€(2).€€All€that€is€necessary,Š pĄ  Štherefore,€for€a€court€order€to€issue€is€that€these€conditions€beŠ !l" Šmet.€€No€additional€notice€is€necessary.׃"ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś18Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ Č"$ Šą ` ąIn€ņņHurleyóó,€we€allowed€an€order€for€substitute€assets€toŠ t$Ä& Šbe€entered€after€the€case€had€already€been€appealed,€which€wouldŠ  &p!( Šimply€that€the€government€could€ask€for€such€an€order€at€any€time.€Š ° Š63€F.3d€at€23„24.€€We€noted€there€that€"the€government€might€notŠ \¬ Ševen€know€that€substitution€is€necessary€until€it€seeks€to€takeŠ X Špossession€of€the€property€specified€in€the€initial€forfeitureŠ “  Šorder."€€ņņId.óó;€ņņseeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņVoigtóó,€89€F.3d€1050,€1088€(3dŠ ` ° ŠCir.€1996)€(on€remand€to€apply€the€substitute€assets€provision,€noŠ  \  Šņņdeóó€ņņnovoóó€hearing€necessary).€€Š ø  Šą ` ąIn€ņņCandelaria„Silvaóó€we€said€that€"[t]he€forfeiture€ofŠ d“  Šsubstitute€assets€is€a€matter€left€solely€to€the€court."€€166€F.3dŠ `  Šņņóóat€43.€€In€that€case€the€parties€chose,€unlike€here,€to€have€theŠ ¼  Šforfeiture€amount€tried€to€a€jury,€which€determined€that€$6,000,000Š hø Šin€proceeds€was€the€asset€subject€to€forfeiture.€€But,€we€said,Š d Š"the€jury€has€no€role€in€determining,€subsequently,€whether€theŠ Ą Šproperty€has€been€dissipated€and€whether€the€government€is€therebyŠ l¼ Šentitled€to€the€forfeiture€of€substitute€assets."€€ņņId.óó€ņņóó€All€we€saidŠ h Šthat€was€necessary€for€the€government€to€show€was€that€theŠ Ä Šprincipal€forfeitable€property€was€not€available.€€ņņId.óó€at€42.€€ThisŠ pĄ  Šis€where€the€burden€of€the€government€lies:€in€showing€that€theŠ !l" Šprincipal€forfeitable€assets€„„€that€is,ņņóó€those€named€in€theŠ Č"$ Šindictment€„„€are€unavailable€at€the€end€of€the€trial,€not€inŠ t$Ä& Šgiving€notice€at€the€beginning€of€the€trial€of€an€intent€to€invokeŠ  &p!( Šthe€substitute€assets€provisions.€€Indeed,€to€allow€the€failure€toŠ Ģ'#* Šspecifically€name€the€substitute€assets€provision€of€the€forfeitureŠ x)Č$, Šstatute€in€the€indictment€„„€or€the€substitute€assets€themselves€„„Š $+t&. Što€defeat€any€later€attempt€to€go€after€substitute€assets€wouldŠ ° Šallow€defendants€to€avoid€forfeiture€simply€by€transferring€awayŠ \¬ Šthe€assets€after€the€indictment€has€come€down.€ņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.Š X ŠņņHatcheróó,€323€F.3d€666,€673€(8th€Cir.€2003)€("The€defendant€does€notŠ “  Šneed€to€know€the€identity€of€the€substitute€assets€to€marshal€aŠ ` ° Šdefense€to€the€forfeiture.€Accordingly,€[it€is]€not€require[d]€thatŠ  \  Šthe€indictment€specify€what€property€will€be€sought€as€substituteŠ ø  Šassets.")Š d“  Šą ` ąIf€the€government€instead€acts€to€enforce€the€moneyŠ `  Šjudgment€without€using€the€substitute€assets€provisions€of€ššŠ ¼  Š853(p),€it€raises€the€question€of€whether€that€is€permitted,€whichŠ hø Šis€a€question€we€need€not€reach€here.€€The€question€is€important,Š d Šsince€šš€853(p)€places€a€greater€burden€on€the€government€beforeŠ Ą Šassets€can€be€seized.€€There€is€some€split€of€authority€among€theŠ l¼ Šcircuits€on€whether€the€government€must€follow€the€procedures€of€ššŠ h Š853(p)€or€not.€€ņņSeeóó,€ņņe.g.óó,€ņņUnited€Statesóó€v.€ņņVampire€Nationóó,€451Š Ä ŠF.3d€189,€202€(3d€Cir.€2006)€("[T]he€ņņinóó€ņņpersonamóó€forfeitureŠ pĄ  Šjudgment€may€also€be€distinguished€from€a€general€judgment€ņņinóóŠ !l" Šņņpersonamóó.€€The€judgment€ņņinóó€ņņpersonamóó€here€is€one€in€forfeiture€andŠ Č"$ Šis€limited€by€the€provisions€of€[šš€853].");€ņņHallóó,€434€F.3d€at€59Š t$Ä& Š(noting€that€a€forfeiture€money€judgment€is€equivalent€to€a€civilŠ  &p!( Šjudgment,€though€that€issue€was€not€directly€before€the€court).ņņóóŠ Ģ'#* Šą ` ąIn€summary,€a€court€may€properly€issue€a€money€judgmentŠ x)Č$, Šas€part€of€a€forfeiture€order,€whether€or€not€the€defendant€stillŠ $+t&. Šretains€the€actual€property€involved€in€the€offense,€or€anyŠ ° Šproperty€at€all.€€Furthermore,€the€money€judgment€can€be€used€inŠ \¬ Šthe€future€to€seek€forfeiture€of€substitute€assets€by€court€orderŠ X Šunder€šš€853(p)€and€Rule€32.2,€even€where€the€government€has€notŠ “  Šexpressed€an€intent€to€do€so€at€any€time€before€it€seeks€such€anŠ ` ° Šorder.€€We€leave€for€another€day€the€question€of€whether,€inŠ  \  Šseeking€to€seize€assets€to€satisfy€that€judgment,€the€government€isŠ ø  Šņņrequiredóó€to€do€so€under€the€substitute€assets€provisions€of€ššŠ d“  Š853(p),€or€whether€it€may€use€the€judgment€to€attach€assets€justŠ `  Šlike€any€other€judgment€creditor€could.Š ¼  Šą ` ąņņ2.€Forfeiture€AmountóóŠ hø Šą ` ąAfter€reviewing€the€record€we€find€that€the€judge€made€noŠ d Šerror€in€calculating€the€forfeiture€amount.€€The€$147,400€amount€isŠ Ą Šsupported€by€checks€entered€into€evidence€and€testimony€of€RamosŠ l¼ Šthat€the€funds€from€the€checks€were€delivered€to€Misla.€€MislaŠ h Šattempts€some€arithmetical€sleight€of€hand€to€arrive€at€a€lowerŠ Ä Šfigure,€but€he€and€the€government€largely€agree€on€theŠ pĄ  Šcharacterization€of€most€of€the€checks.€€They€differ€only€as€to€theŠ !l" Šchecks€made€out€to€Francisco€Diez€and€Raul€Ferrer€(exhibits€89€andŠ Č"$ Š91)€and€one€$10,000€check€Ramos€received€from€the€hospital€(exhibitŠ t$Ä& Š94).€€Š  &p!( Šą ` ąMisla€argues€that€the€government€stated€at€the€forfeitureŠ Ģ'#* Šhearing€that€the€Diez€and€Ferrer€checks€were€not€included€in€theŠ x)Č$, Šforfeiture€calculation.€€In€fact,€the€government€stated€only€thatŠ $+t&. ŠDiez's€check€was€not€included;€it€did€not€disavow€the€Ferrer€check.€Š ° ŠMoreover,€even€the€disavowal€of€the€Diez€check€was€oversight€on€theŠ \¬ Šgovernment's€part;€the€Diez€check€was€included€in€the€forfeitureŠ X Šcalculation,€and€the€government€pointed€to€the€evidence€andŠ “  Štestimony€in€the€record€supporting€its€inclusion€in€the€forfeitureŠ ` ° Šamount.€€As€to€the€$10,000€check,€Misla€simply€misreads€theŠ  \  Štestimony.€€Misla€argues€that€two€$10,000€checks€constitutedŠ ø  ŠRamos's€salary€and€thus€should€not€have€been€considered.€€In€fact,Š d“  Šonly€the€second€of€the€two€$10,000€checks€constituted€Ramos'sŠ `  Šsalary.€€He€testified€that€he€gave€Misla€either€$9000€or€$9500€ofŠ ¼  Šthe€first€$10,000,€and€the€government€relied€on€the€lower€figure€inŠ hø Šcalculating€the€amount.€€There€was€no€error.׃0ׯ ƒ#ĆŻņņŚ  Ś19Ś  ŚóóŻ  Ż×  ׊ d ŠÓ  Óņ ņIII.€Conclusionó óŠ Ą ŠÓ­iÓą ` ąFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€districtŠ ˆŲ Šcourt€is€ņņaffirmedóó.Ō#† X'˜XXXņ “#Ō