United States v. Roger D. Blackwell

OPINION

Defendant, Roger D. Blackwell, appeals a December 15, 2005 final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, convicting Defendant of one count of conspiracy to commit insider trading in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of conspiracy to obstruct an agency proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, fourteen counts of insider trading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j and 78ff, one count of obstructing an agency proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and two counts of making false statements in a federal matter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; sentencing Defendant to seventy-two months imprisonment; and fining Defendant $ 1,000,000. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM Defendant’s convictions and sentence.

*749 I.

BACKGROUND

Defendant is a former professor at Ohio State University’s School of Business, as well as the president of Roger Blackwell and Associates (“RBA”) and an investor in Black Jack Enterprises. Between 1991 and 2004 he was married to Kristina Stephan-Blackwell (“Stephan-Blackwell”). The events in this case arise out of the conduct of Defendant and Stephan-Blackwell in 1999, while Defendant was a member of the board of directors of a small natural foods company, Worthington Foods (“WF”). In July 1999, Kellogg Company (“Kellogg”) initiated negotiations for a buyout of WF. The buyout occurred in October 1999. Between July and October 1999, however, several of Defendant’s friends and family members invested in WF stock. The following is a list of persons linked to the Blackwells, who bought stock between July and October 1999:

• Gertrude and Alfred Stephan (“the Stephans”), the parents of Stephan-Blackwell;

• Dale and Christian Blackwell, the father and son of Defendant, respectively;

• Kelley L. Hughes (“Hughes”), RBA’s director of marketing;

• Kevin L. Stacey (“Stacey”), the husband of Hughes;

• Arnold L. Jack (“Jack”), a long-time friend of Defendant and co-owner of Black Jack Enterprises;

• Justin Voss (‘Voss”), a long-time friend and business associate of Defendant; and

• Jack Kahl (“Kahl”), a long-time friend and business associate of Defendant.

The increased buying activity in WF stock between July and October 1999 led to an investigation. On December 15, 1999, the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) sent Kellogg a questionnaire on the Kellogg-WF buyout, requesting information on relationships between persons who bought stock between July and October 1999 and persons who knew about the buyout. Pursuant to the NASD inquiry, Kellogg forwarded the list of persons who bought stock to Defendant, and requested that he inform them of any relationships he had with such persons. Defendant responded to the inquiry by stating: “I supplied no information about the transaction to any of the people on the list or any one else. When asked by anyone about Worthington Foods during this period, I replied that I was not able to comment about the company’s stock, as is my standard practice.” (J.A. at 4882.)

On March 16, 2000, the NASD sent a follow-up questionnaire to Kellogg. The follow-up, among other things, explicitly requested that Defendant supply information on his relationships to the Blackwells, Jack, Black Jack Enterprises, Hughes, Stacey and a statement as any circumstances under -which they might have learned of the buyout. Defendant responded, explaining his relationships to them, but denying that he informed them of the buyout. Defendant stated, and still maintains, that he promoted WF because he believed in its value, but never disclosed the buyout.

On November 2, 2000, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a subpoena, requiring Defendant to produce various documents and appear to testify before the SEC. Defendant eventually testified before the SEC on January 9, 2001, claiming that he did not disclose any information about the Kellogg-WF buyout to any person. In January 2002, the SEC sent a written inquiry to Defendant. Defendant responded on January 18, 2002, reiterating his position that he never disclosed any information about the Kellogg- *750 WF buyout. In February 2002, Stephan-Blackwell and her parents testified before SEC. They denied that Blackwell had given them insider information on the buyout.

In early 2003, Defendant and Stephan-Blackwell began to have marital difficulties. They separated and Stephan-Blackwell moved to New York, where she began dating Terry Lundgren. In the spring of 2004, Stephan-Blackwell’s attorney contacted the government about the instant case. Sometime thereafter Stephan-Blackwell learned that the government was considering pressing charges against her for perjury and insider trading. In the summer of 2004, Stephan-Blackwell and the government worked out an immunity deal, in which Stephan-Blackwell and her parents would receive immunity in exchange for Stephan-Blackwell’s admission to conspiracy, perjury, and insider trading and testimony against Defendant. Stephan-Blackwell and Defendant finalized their divorce at approximately the same time. Several months later, Stephan-Blackwell and Lundgren became engaged.

In this same time period, Kahl also approached the government about his involvement in the instant case. On May 27, 2004, pursuant to a proffer of immunity, Kahl admitted to the FBI that Defendant tipped him on the Kellogg-WF buyout. Subsequently, Kahl testified before the grand jury. Specifically, Kahl testified that he spoke with Defendant around 12:30 p.m. on his (Kahl’s) birthday, September 20, 1999, and that Defendant informed him that Kellogg was going to buy out WF and that Kahl should buy WF stock.

On August 26, 2004, a grand jury indicted Defendant, Hughes, Stacey, Jack, Voss, and Black Jack Enterprises on charges of insider trading in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j and 78ff, conspiracy to commit insider in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, obstruction of agency proceedings in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, conspiracy to obstruct agency proceedings in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

At trial Stephan-Blackwell, Mary Hiser, Jack Kahl, Dwight Twomley, and Michelle Destefano testified for the government. Stephan-Blackwell testified that she informed her parents, the Stephans, and her cousin, Sigrid McFetridge, of the buyout and encouraged them to buy WF stock after discussing the propriety of doing so with Defendant. She further testified that she and Defendant gave her parents money to buy WF stock. Stephan-Blackwell also testified that both she and Blackwell lied to the NASD and SEC about the tipping, and that she coached her mother to lie to the SEC. She further testified that she deleted emails to Jack Kahl, Sigrid McFetridge, Gertrude Stephan, and Justin Voss on November 8, 2002, after receiving a SEC subpoena, in order to protect herself and Defendant. According to Stephan-Blackwell, Defendant was aware of the deletions and condoned them. Additionally, she and Blackwell formulated a plan to withhold information and obscure their relationships with parties who bought WF stock.

Significantly, during Stephan-Blackwell’s trial testimony, Defendant allegedly mouthed “I hate you” to Stephan-Blackwell. Finding that such conduct would constitute witness intimidation, the district court allowed Defendant to be cross-examined on this issue, during which Defendant denied mouthing anything to Stephan-Blackwell.

Mary Hiser, Defendant’s assistant at RBA, testified that she was responsible for opening mail and emails at RBA and that no mail or emails had been sent to RBA about the buyout. Hiser further testified that on November 10, 2000 she noticed that four entries had recently been deleted *751 on November 8, 2000 from RBA’s database: (1) Sigrid McFetridge; (2) John Kahl; 1 (8) Alfred Stephan; and (4) Justin Voss. Hiser printed a copy of the record of deletion because she knew that RBA’s files had been subpoenaed. The record was entered into evidence.

Jack Kahl testified that Defendant Blackwell informed him of the buyout, and that he bought WF stock on the morning of his birthday, September 20, 1999, based on the tip. Kahl could not remember the exact date that Defendant tipped him but believed it was around his birthday.

Twomley, WF’s CEO and chairman of the board in 1999, testified regarding WF, the buyout, and Defendant’s knowledge of it as a board member. Twomley further testified that there were rumors, mainly among WF employees, in the summer of 1999 that a bigger company would buy out WF.

Michelle DeStefano, an FBI agent involved in investigating the defendants, testified that subpoenaed phone records evidenced numerous phone calls between the defendants between July and October 1999.

Thereafter, defendants Jack, Voss, Hughes, Stacey, and Blackwell, as well as non-defendants, Dale Blackwell (Defendant’s father), Professor Jarrell, and John Adams testified for the defense. All the defendants denied wrongdoing. Specifically, they all denied that Defendant Blackwell informed them of the buyout. Jack, an attorney, and Voss, who has a Ph.D. in economics and formerly was a professor at George Washington University, additionally testified that they had extensive stock market experience and bought WF stock because it appeared to be a good deal.

Professor Jarrell, former chief economist for the SEC, testified that WF stock was undervalued in September 1999, and thus that it was a good buy. He further testified that sophisticated investors would recognize that WF was undervalued and a potential target for a buyout. Professor Jarrell also explained “leakage theory.” According to Professor Jarrell, information on mergers and buyouts will often “leak” to the public without insider trading. Companies about to buy out or be bought out give off signals indicating that a future buyout will occur. Sophisticated investors, especially analysts, and research companies looking for these signals, often learn of buyouts before they are publically announced. Similarly, family members and close friends may notice an insider’s increased activity levels and presume that a merger, or some other large transaction, is about to occur. Finally, Adams testified that he saw rumors of the buyout on Yahoo.

Based on the testimony described above, a jury convicted Defendant of insider trading, conspiracy to commit insider trading, conspiracy to obstruct an agency proceeding, and obstruction of an agency proceeding. A juror’s interview in a Columbus magazine, published several months after trial, states that three jurors believed they saw Defendant mouth “I hate you” to Stephan-Blackwell and that Defendant’s denial of such actions destroyed his credibility. Defendant moved for a new trial based on the “lip reading incident,” which the district court denied.

II.

DISCUSSION

Defendant challenges his conviction on the following grounds: (1) the trial court *752 denied him a meaningful opportunity to present a defense by excluding evidence and limiting cross-examination; (2) the government withheld exculpatory, material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland; (3) insufficient evidence exists to support his convictions for conspiracy, false statements, and obstruction of an agency proceeding; (4) the conspiracy indictment materially varied from the evidence at trial, allowing the introduction of prejudicial evidence and depriving him of the opportunity to prepare an adequate defense; (5) the trial court’s jury instructions were improper; (6) three jurors violated Defendant’s right to confront witnesses by “testifying” that Defendant mouthed “I hate you” to Stephan-Blackwell during jury deliberations; and (7) cumulative errors rendered Defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair in violation of due process.

Defendant challenges his sentence on the following grounds: (1) the $1,000,000 fine was excessive; (2) the condition on Defendant’s supervised release, prohibiting him from profiting from writing about his crimes, violates the First Amendment; (3) the district court improperly enhanced his sentence by miscalculating “loss amounts” attributable to Defendant’s conduct; and (4) the district court failed to consider all of the relevant § 3553 factors.

We find that all of Defendant’s claims on appeal are wholly without merit. Each issue is discussed separately below.

A. Meaningful Defense

Defendant argues that he was denied the right to present a meaningful defense in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution when the district court excluded testimony from defense witnesses Professor Jarrell, Jehn, Adams, and Cusato, and when the district court limited his cross-examination of prosecution witnesses Stephan-Blackwell and Kahl. For the reasons set forth below, we find that Defendant was not denied the right to present a meaningful defense.

1. Standard of Review

The parties in this case dispute the standard of review. Defendant argues that this Court applies de novo review to constitutional challenges to evidentiary decisions whereas the government argues that this Court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review to all evidentiary decisions. While the government is correct that we review all challenges to district court evidentiary rulings, including constitutional challenges, under the abuse of discretion standard, see United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548, 564 (6th Cir.2003); United States v. Mick, 263 F.3d 553, 566 (2001); United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825, 837 (6th Cir.2001), the abuse of discretion standard is not at odds with de novo interpretation of the Constitution inasmuch as district court does not have the discretion to rest its evidentiary decisions on incorrect interpretations of the Constitution, see United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 832, 842 (6th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Baker, 458 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir.2006) (“[Tjhese two standards of review are not in fact inconsistent because it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determinations.”)

2. The Right to a Meaningful Defense

“Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the [Fifth Amendment] or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” Holmes v. *753 South Carolina, — U.S. ——, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 1732, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) (quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986)). “While the Constitution thus prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that are designed to serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends they are asserted to promote ... the Constitution permits judges to exclude evidence that is repetitive ... only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). Accordingly, “ ‘[t]he accused does not have an unfettered right to offer [evidence] that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.’ ” Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996) (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)); see also United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (holding that rules of evidence only infringe on a defendant’s right to present a defense where they are arbitrary or disproportionate or infringe on a weighty interest of the accused). Moreover, even where a district court erroneously excludes defense evidence, “[w]hether the exclusion of [witnesses’] testimony violated [defendant’s] right to present a defense depends upon whether the omitted evidence [evaluated in the context of the entire record] creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist.” Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 57 (2d Cir.2001).

3. Defendant Was Not Denied the Right to Present a Meaningful Defense

a. Exclusion of Professor Jarrell’s Testimony

The exclusion of portions of Professor Jarrell’s testimony was not an abuse of discretion, and accordingly, did not deny Defendant the right to present a meaningful defense. Defendant offered Professor Jarrell’s testimony to support an alternative theory of events: that Defendant’s friends and family learned about the merger through “leakage” and not insider trading. Importantly, Professor Jarrell was allowed to testify about leakage theory. Professor Jarrell explained that information about a buyout may “leak” not only through an insider’s improper disclosure but also through non-insiders’ observations of company activity in the period leading up to a buyout. The only portion of Professor Jarrell’s testimony that the district court excluded was testimony relating to the existence of trading by persons with relationships to WF directors other than Defendant, and correspondingly, a chart demonstrating such trading (“the Jarrell Chart”). The district court reasoned that the testimony and chart were not relevant and thus were inadmissible.

We believe that the district court’s holding was correct. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 permits the introduction only of relevant evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. As the district court held, the excluded testimony did not make “leakage” any more likely than tipping, and thus did not make Defendant’s innocence “more probable ... than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 401. Professor Jar-rell was not proffering testimony that the existence of trading around other WF officials made leakage a more probable explanation than tipping. Instead, Professor Jarrell planned to testify that the trading *754 around other WF officials could have been caused by leakage. It is equally plausible, however, that the other directors tipped their relations. As the district court correctly explained, “Maybe they should have prosecuted these other people, too. Just because they didn’t prosecute everybody, [doesn’t make the testimony] relevant.” (J.A. at 2297.)

We might have reached a different conclusion regarding relevancy if Defendant was prepared to offer proof that the sheer existence of trading around all directors made leakage a more likely theory than insider trading. Neither the record, briefs, nor arguments on appeal, however, indicate that Defendant was prepared to offer evidence that trading around numerous WF officials makes leakage a more plausible theory of information dissemination than insider trading. Although Defendant contends that leakage was more likely than insider trading, Defendant does not contend that the sheer existence of trading around other directors is proof of this. Instead, Defendant argues that the trading around the other directors was leakage, and thus the chart leads to the inference that the trading around Defendant was leakage. (Def.’s Br. 22 (“The jury was not permitted to learn that Leakage is not just an ‘ivory tower’ theory. It occurred around almost every WF official ... ”).) As explained above, Defendant simply offered evidence that the trading around other WF officials was leakage, and consequently, the evidence does not permit an inference that the trading around other officials indicated that his family and friends learned about the merger through leakage.

Furthermore, we reject Defendant’s argument, which we duly note was newly crafted on appeal, that Professor Jarrell’s testimony was relevant to demonstrate other sources of tipping — the other WF directors — thereby decreasing the likelihood that Defendant tipped his family and friends. While the existence of other sources of tipping surely was relevant to Defendant’s case, Professor Jarrell was not qualified to testify about these sources inasmuch as he lacked personal knowledge of them. Experts may rely on knowledge outside their own personal knowledge when testifying on “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 566 (6th Cir.1994). They must rely on personal knowledge, however, when testifying on all other subjects. See Fed. R. of Evid. 601, 701; United States v. Sheffey, 57 F.3d 1419, 1428 (6th Cir.1995). Testimony on the activities of WF employees does not require specialized knowledge, and consequently, is subject to 701’s personal knowledge requirement.

b. Exclusion of the Testimony of Jehn, Adams, and Cusato

Similarly, the exclusion of the testimony of Jehn, Adams, and Cusato did not deny Defendant the right to present a meaningful defense. The district court excluded three types of evidence from Jehn, Adams, and Cusato: (1) Jehn’s statement that he had heard that Yahoo contained rumors about a Kellogg buyout of WF; (2) Adam’s statements recounting his conversation with Jehn about buyout rumors; and (3) statements from all three men that a WF employee tipped them off on the buyout. The first two sets of statements were properly excluded under the rule against hearsay while the exclusion of the third set of statements constituted harmless error. Because neither the Fifth nor Sixth Amendment prohibit the exclusion of hearsay unless such exclusion infringes on a weighty interest of the accused, see Scheffer, 523 U.S. at 330 n. 17, 118 S.Ct. 1261, nor require this Court to reverse a convic *755 tion for harmless evidentiary error, the exclusion of the testimony of Jehn, Adams, and Cusato did not deprive Defendant of a meaningful opportunity to present a defense.

First, both Jehn’s statement that he heard that a Yahoo message board contained a rumor about the buyout and Adams’ statements recounting his conversation with Jehn were properly excluded under the rule against hearsay. Under the rule against hearsay, a witness may not testify as to “statement^ other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed.R.Evid. 801 and 802. Jehn’s testimony about the Yahoo statement was a recounting of a statement made outside of court and was offered to prove the matter asserted in that out of court statement, the existence of a rumor on Yahoo. Thus, Jehn’s statement was hearsay. Similarly, Adams’ testimony regarding his conversation about rumors with Jehn was a recounting of statements made outside of court offered to prove the matter asserted in the statement, that Adams and Jehn both heard rumors of the buyout. Accordingly, Adams’ testimony was hearsay.

Defendant attempts to argue that the Yahoo statement was not hearsay by arguing that it was not offered to prove the truth of the buyout, but simply the existence of rumors. Defendant’s argument misses the point; the fact that the statement was offered to prove the existence of a rumor on Yahoo is exactly what makes it hearsay. The out of court statement repeated by Jehn asserted the existence of a rumor on Yahoo, not the existence of a buyout. Thus, the statement is hearsay even if offered to prove the existence of the Yahoo rumor. It would be double hearsay if offered to prove the existence of the buyout. Importantly, Adams, who actually saw the rumor on Yahoo, was permitted to testify that there was a rumor on Yahoo about the buyout.

We further note that this testimony was not offered for the purpose of demonstrating the reason that Jehn bought WF stock, nor would it have been admissible for this purpose. Although the testimony would not have been hearsay if offered to prove Jehn’s motivation, Jehn’s motivation was not relevant to any issue at trial. Blackwell was not charged with tipping Jehn. Blackwell simply offered Jehn’s testimony to support to support his theory that the persons he allegedly tipped could have learned of the buyout from other sources.

Second, the exclusion of the testimony of Jehn, Adams, and Cusato that they were tipped on the buyout from a WF employee was harmless, and thus, did not deprive Defendant of the right to present a defense. Washington, 255 F.3d at 57. Dale Twomley testified that rumors of a buyout were circulating among WF employees and Adams testified that a rumor was posted on a Yahoo message board. Thus, the jury was aware that persons other than Defendant possessed information about the buyout and conceivably tipped Defendant’s family and friends. The exclusion of cumulative testimony does not impair the right to present a meaningful defense. Holmes, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. at 1732.

c. Limitation on the Cross-examination of Kahl

The district court’s limitation on Defendant’s cross-examination of Kahl did not deprive Defendant of a meaningful opportunity to defend himself. The defense theory was that Kahl changed the date of the tip after his WF stock order tickets and phone records established that Defendant could not have tipped Kahl on September *756 20, 1999. The order tickets showed that Kahl bought WF stock the morning of the 20th before speaking with Defendant. Defendant raises two specific ways in which the district court limited his ability to question Kahl about the discrepancy between the date Kahl gave before the grand jury — September 20, or his birthday — and the date Kahl gave at trial- — probably in the days before his birthday. First the district court sustained an objection to a question from defense counsel asking Kahl what date Kahl stated before the grand jury. Second, the district court sustained an objection to defense counsel’s attempt to have Kahl to lay a foundation for Kahl’s order tickets for his WF stock, which contained the date and time at which Kahl bought WF stock.

Both of the district court’s rulings were correct legal applications of standard, justifiable rules of evidence, and accordingly, did not deprive Defendant of the right to present a meaningful defense. See Egelhoff, 518 U.S. at 42, 116 S.Ct. 2013. The district court sustained the first objection because the question was repetitive. Defendant’s attorney had already asked Kahl this question, and received an honest answer, on seven occasions. The district court sustained the second objection because Kahl had never seen the order tickets. Normally, Kahl’s stock broker took care of the details of his stock transactions. Kahl therefore had no personal knowledge of the ticket and was not the proper witness to question about it. Fed.R.Evid. 602. Significantly, Defendant later called a stock broker to testify about the order tickets and was able to introduce the order tickets at that time.

Furthermore, Defendant exaggerates the discrepancy between Kahl’s grand jury testimony and trial testimony. In reality, any discrepancy was minor and did not truly discredit Kahl’s testimony. Defendant cites the following language to emphasize how “sure” Kahl was of the September 20 date in his grand jury testimony:

Q: So is there any doubt in your mind that you were talking to Roger Blackwell on the telephone on your birthday in 1999.

A. There is no doubt.

(J.A. at 4279.) However, read in context it is clear that the “no doubt” refers to the fact that the person on the other end of the phone was Defendant and not the date of the conversation. The above quoted question and answer in context read as follows:

Q: In addition to that over the years of your friendship with Roger Blackwell, have you spoken with him in person and on the telephone on many occasions.

A: Oh, yeah.

Q: As a consequence of those discussions with Roger Blackwell, did you learn to recognize his voice?

A: Yes.

Q: So is there any doubt in your mind that you were talking to Roger Blackwell on the telephone on your birthday in 1999.

A. There is no doubt.

(J.A. at 4277-78.) Additionally, other comments by Kahl before the grand jury evidence he did not recall details. (See J.A. at 4279-80 (“You, know, this is—I’m trying to re-put this thing together. Because the hard facts I remember well. The rest of it is all fuzz. But I believe he was calling to wish me a happy birthday and started kidding around that I ought to eat more veggie burgers.”).) Inasmuch as the district court’s limitations on Defendant’s cross-examination of Kahl were both proper and harmless, they did not violate De *757 fendant’s right to present a meaningful defense.

d. Limitations on the Cross-examination of Stephan-Blackwell

Finally, the district court’s limitations on Defendant’s cross-examination of Stephan-Blackwell did not deprive Defendant of a meaningful opportunity to defend himself because the limitations were harmless. Defendant argues that the district court erred in limiting Defendant’s questions to Stephan-Blackwell on (1) the timing of her immunity agreement; (2) her own understanding of her immunity agreement; (3) and her relationship with Terry Lundgren. According to the Defendant, these questions were necessary to prove bias and attack Stephan-Blackwell’s credibility. In particular, Defendant aimed to challenge Stephan-Blaekwell’s claim that she lied to the SEC to protect Blackwell because she loved him.

Information on all three of these issues came out during Stephan-Blackwell’s cross-examination, rendering her bias more than apparent. On cross-examination, Stephan-Blackwell admitted that she was dating Lundgren in 2003, at which time she was still lying to the SEC about her involvement in this case. She further admitted that she approached the government about immunity only after she separated from Defendant and that shortly after she received immunity she became engaged to Lundgren. Moreover, Defendant raised all these issues in his closing. Because the limitations placed on Defendant’s cross-examination of Stephan-Blackwell did not deprive Defendant of the ability to attack Stephan-Blackwell’s credibility and reveal any potential bias, the limitations cannot be said to have deprived Defendant of the opportunity to defend himself. Boggs v. Collins, 226 F.3d 728, 739 (6th Cir.2000) (holding that Defendant’s right to cross-examine a witness for bias or motivation to lie is not grounds for reversal where “the jury had enough information, despite the limits placed on otherwise permitted cross-examination, to assess the defense theory of bias or improper motive.”).

e. Cumulative Effect of the District Court’s Evidentiary Rulings

In addition to arguing that each of the district court’s evidentiary rulings amounted to independent violations of his right to present a defense, Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the district court’s evidentiary errors violated his right to present a meaningful defense. We disagree. Despite Defendant’s numerous challenges to the district court’s evi-dentiary rulings, only two of those rulings can possibly be considered erroneous: the district court’s limitations on the cross-examination of Stephan-Blackwell and the district court’s exclusion of testimony that a WF employee tipped Jehn, Adams, and Cusato. Taken together, these rulings were not so prejudicial that they denied Defendant of a meaningful opportunity to present a defense.

In asking whether Defendant was ultimately denied a meaningful defense, we look to whether the improperly excluded evidence (or limited cross-examination) would have created a reasonable doubt as to Defendant’s guilt. Washington, 255 F.3d at 57. In the instant case, permitting Defendant to present testimony that a WF employee tipped Jehns, Adams, and Cusa-to about the buyout and to cross-examine Stephan Blackwell about the precise date she signed the immunity agreement would not have created a reasonable doubt as to Defendant’s guilt. First, the testimony that a WF employee tipped Jehns, Adams, and Cusato was not particularly probative. The existence of this tipper did not truly cast doubt on Defendant’s guilt inasmuch *758 as Defendant offered no evidence connecting the WF tipper to the persons Defendant allegedly tipped. Second, while Defendant was unable to establish the precise date on which Stephan-Blackwell signed the immunity agreement, Defendant was able to establish the relevant time frame in which Stephan-Blackwell signed the immunity agreement: after leaving Defendant and beginning a relationship with another man. Third, there was extensive evidence of Defendant’s guilt, including testimony from Defendant’s good friend, Kahl, that Defendant tipped him, testimony from Defendant’s ex-wife that Defendant tipped her, and the sheer number of family and friends of Defendant who bought WF stock in the relevant time period. Therefore, we find that even viewing the alleged evidentiary errors cumulatively, Defendant was not denied the opportunity to present a meaningful defense.

B. Brady Claim

The government belatedly provided three documents to Defendant that form the basis for Defendant’s Brady Claim: (1) a letter to the Stephans’ attorney, James E. Phillips, setting forth the government’s understanding of the Stephans’ immunity agreement (“the Stephans’ immunity letter”); (2) the FBI’s notes from an interview with Sigrid McFetridge (“the McFet-ridge Report”); and (3) the FBI’s notes from an interview with Benoit, the vice-president of Kellogg (“the Benoit Report”). According to Defendant, the government’s belated production of the Stephans’ immunity letter and the McFetridge Report rendered him unable to effectively cross-examine Stephan-Blackwell by depriving him of knowledge of the interlocking nature of the Stephans’ immunity agreement with Stephan-Blackwell’s testimony and the nature of Stephan-Blackwell’s role in McFetridge’s trading. Specifically, the Stephans’ immunity letter made it clear that their immunity was dependant on Stephan-Blackwell’s cooperation, which, according to Defendant, gave Stephan-Blackwell an additional incentive to lie. The McFetridge Report states that Stephan-Blackwell tipped McFetridge, encouraged her to buy WF stock, and coached her to lie to law enforcement. Defendant argues that the belated production of the Benoit report deprived him of the exculpatory statements by Benoit regarding the interest of several large companies in WF prior to the Kellogg buyout. Defendant also makes the perfunctory argument that the documents would have altered his voir dire strategy and opening statement, and caused him to subpoena the Stephans before the Stephans left the country. We are not convinced by any of Defendant’s arguments.

1. Standard of Review

We review a district court’s decision to deny a mistrial for delayed disclosure of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 306 F.3d 398, 420 (6th Cir.2002).

2. Brady v. Maryland

“Brady v. Maryland requires disclosure only of evidence that is both favorable to the accused and ‘material either to guilt or innocence.’ ” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (quoting Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)). Evidence is favorable to the accused if it exculpates the accused or enables the accused to impeach witnesses. Id. at 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375. Evidence is material to guilt or innocence “if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A ‘reasonable probability’ is a probability *759 sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375.

3. No Brady Violation Occurred

No Brady violation occurred in this case. The Defendant received all three documents during trial. United States v. Blood, 435 F.3d 612, 627 (6th Cir.2006) {“Brady generally does not apply to delayed disclosure of exculpatory information, but only to a complete failure to disclose” and [] a “[d]elay only violates Brady when the delay itself causes prejudice”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Furthermore, the district court expressly granted Defendant the opportunity to re-cross examine Stephan-Blaekwell and took no action to prevent Defendant from calling Benoit as a witness. Accordingly, Defendant had the opportunity to examine both Stephan-Blaekwell and Benoit in light of the disclosed documents and any prejudice resulting from Defendant’s failure to do so is not attributable to the government’s violation of the principles set forth in Brady. See United States v. Delgado, 350 F.3d 520 (6th Cir.2003) (citing United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 528, 538 (6th Cir.2000)).

Defendant’s argument that the belated disclosure of the documents prejudiced the entire defense, including voir dire and the opening statement is meritless. First, Defendant presents his argument on this issue in a perfunctory manner, providing no explanation of how the disclosed material would have altered his defense. Second, the pertinent information in the disclosed documents was, for the most part, already available to Defendant. See Bagley,