United States v. A. Stephan Botes , 290 F. App'x 316 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUG 25, 2008
No. 06-15238 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00568-CR-CC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
A. STEPHAN BOTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 25, 2008)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
A. Stephan Botes was convicted of conspiracy to embezzle federal funds by
a state agent and conspiracy to commit a scheme to defraud the State of Georgia
and its citizens of money and honest services (Count 1), embezzlement of federal
funds (Counts 2-12), and wire fraud (Counts 18, 20-21). He was sentenced to 97-
months’ imprisonment and the district court entered an order of restitution and a
criminal forfeiture judgment against him in the amount of $382,394.
On appeal, Botes argues the following: (1) the denial of Botes’s mistrial
motion following the lead prosecutor’s selection for a federal magistrate judgeship
requires reversal of his convictions; (2) the evidence was not sufficient to support
his conviction for conspiracy to defraud the state of Georgia and deprive Georgia
of the honest services of state school superintendent Linda Schrenko; (3) the
evidence was not sufficient to show that Botes aided and abetted a scheme to
defraud Georgia; (4) the district court improperly instructed the jury on aiding and
abetting; (5) the evidence was not sufficient to show that Botes engaged in a
scheme to defraud Georgia via wires; (6) the district court’s evidentiary rulings
concerning testimony by Botes’s business attorney Kauffmann and Schrenko
require reversal; (7) the cumulative effect of the evidentiary rulings requires
reversal; (8) the denial of Botes’s requests for specific jury instructions deprived
Botes of his right to present a theory of defense; (9) the district court improperly
enhanced Botes’s sentence for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the
sentencing guidelines; (10) his sentence was unreasonable; (11) the sentencing
2
court violated Botes’s Sixth Amendment rights when it considered facts that were
neither admitted by Botes nor found by the jury as part of their verdict; (12) the
sentencing court denied Botes his right of allocution; (13) the factual basis for the
order of restitution was clearly erroneous; (14) the order of forfeiture violated
Botes’s constitutional rights and was without statutory authority; and (15) Botes is
entitled to access backup audiotape recordings of closing arguments and
sentencing.
Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the
benefit of having heard oral argument, we conclude that Botes’s arguments have
no merit. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3