IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
v. ) 2:21cr49-MHT
) (WO)
WILLIAM RICHARD CARTER, )
JR. )

OPINION ON ADMISSIBILITY OF CO-CONSPIRATOR

STATEMENTS AND ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

This case centers on a conspiracy to commit fraud

within Alabama’s system of funding for public education,

through the enrollment of private school students as

full-time public school virtual students. One of the

defendants, William Richard Carter, Jr., was convicted

by a jury of conspiracy to commit offenses against the

United States as well as several counts of wire fraud and

aggravated identity theft.

Two issues are currently before the court. The first

is the admissibility of co-conspirators’ statements

against Carter at trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Previously, at trial, the court

made brief oral findings, concluded that the statements

were admissible at Carter’s trial, and promised that a

more detailed opinion would follow. The second issue is

whether Carter is entitled to a new trial. After the

trial, he filed a motion for a new trial based on the

weight of the evidence, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 33(a). In a brief order entered a

couple of weeks ago, the court denied the motion and

promised that an opinion would follow.

With this promised opinion, the court explains in

more detail why it admitted the co-conspirator statements

at trial and explains why it denied Carter’s new-trial

motion.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Carter, along with defendants William Lee (“Trey”)

Holladay, III, Gregory Earl Corkren, David Webb Tutt, and

Thomas Michael Sisk, was charged in a 127-count

2
indictment.1 The indictment charged all five defendants

with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against

the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. It

also charged Carter and Holladay with multiple counts of

wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and charged

Carter, Holladay, and Corkren with one or more counts of

aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1028A. Prior to trial, Holladay, Corkren, Tutt, and

Sisk entered guilty pleas to one or more counts.

Carter proceeded to a jury trial, at which Corkren

and Sisk testified. At the conclusion of the evidence,

and as required by law, see United States v. Hewes, 729

F.2d 1302, 1312 (11th Cir. 1984), the court addressed the

issue of the admissibility of out-of-court co-conspirator

statements. The court made oral findings that the

government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence

all of the requisites for the admissibility of any

1. Holladay’s wife was also indicted, but the

indictment was later dismissed as to her.
3
out-of-court co-conspirator statements that were

received against Carter, and the court promised that a

more detailed opinion would follow. In addition, the

court denied Carter’s oral motions for a judgment of

acquittal.

The jury found Carter guilty of one count of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud against the United

States, four counts of wire fraud, and two counts of

aggravated identity theft. The jury found him not guilty

of the remaining 74 counts of wire fraud and was unable

to reach a verdict on the remaining 32 counts of

aggravated identity theft. The court granted the

government’s oral motion to dismiss the counts for which

the jury could not reach a verdict.

After the trial, Carter filed a motion for new trial,

and the court later entered a brief order denying the

motion, with a promise that an opinion would follow.

4
 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The alleged conspiracy at the heart of the indictment

consisted of an agreement among the defendants, including

several public-school administrators, to acquire the

identifying information and educational records of

private school students and to use this information to

inflate the enrollment numbers of at least two public

school districts, the Athens City School District and the

Limestone County School District. These artificial

increases in reported enrollment increased the funding

that the districts received from the Alabama State

Department of Education. The indictment alleged that

portions of this increased funding were to be used to

fund capital projects and that the defendants diverted

other portions of the increased funding for their own

personal gain. The charged conspiracy existed between

approximately February 2016 and August 2018.

The evidence at trial revealed the following. From

2013 through at least the end of the 2017-2018 school

year, Holladay was the superintendent of the Athens City

5
School District. Sisk was the superintendent of the

Limestone County School District. Corkren and Tutt were

retired educators and friends of Holladay. Finally,

Carter was an Athens district employee whose position

changed several times between 2015 and 2017. In August

2015, he began as a technology teacher at the Athens

Renaissance School, discussed in more detail below. He

was subsequently promoted to coordinator of virtual

programs for the Athens district in October 2015,

director of innovative programs for the district in June

2016, and executive director of innovative programs for

the district in July 2017. See Johnson Feb. 23, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 110-17. Carter also had a prior

relationship with Holladay. See Sallee Feb. 25, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 206-09.

Before proceeding to discuss the conduct and

communications of Carter and his codefendants, the court

begins with an overview of the relevant context,

including the State’s system of funding for public

6
education and the development of the Athens school

district’s virtual programs.

A. Education Funding

At all relevant times, Alabama public school

districts received funding from local and state tax

revenues. School districts received most state funding

from the Education Trust Fund, which in turn required the

districts to participate in the Foundation Program--a

“formula based system” administered by the Alabama State

Department of Education to determine the amount of state

funding each district would receive. Johnson Feb. 23,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 75. The Foundation Program

allocated funding in proportion to a school district’s

“average daily membership,” a metric that was computed

based on a district’s average number of enrolled students

during the 20 school days immediately following Labor

Day. See Craig Mar. 7, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 178-79; Bice

Feb. 23, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 192-94. Generally, a higher

average daily membership corresponded with a higher

7
funding allocation through the Foundation Program.

During the relevant period, adding one additional student

to a district’s average daily membership would result in

an increase of between $ 5,500 and $ 7,000 to the

district’s annual funding allocation.2 See Craig Mar. 7,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 179; Johnson Feb. 23, 2022, R.D. Tr.

76.

To manage student enrollment, each public school

district in the State needed to input the personal

information of its students into a database that was

2. For the most part, payments were made “in

arrears,” which meant that a school district’s average
daily membership at the start of one school year would
affect its funding for the following school year. Craig
Mar. 7, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 183; Johnson Feb. 23, 2022,
R.D. Trial Tr. 100-01. However, certain “current units”
payments were made in the same year in which a school
district’s average daily membership was calculated.
These “current units” payments increased a school
district’s funding for the current school year based on
any increase in that district’s average daily membership
as compared against the previous year. As a result of
these payments, a school district’s immediate growth
would have some effect on the funding received in the
same year in which the new average daily membership was
calculated. Craig Mar. 7, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 186-89.
8
accessible by the State Department of Education. See

Britney Carter Mar. 7, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 54. The data

maintained for each student enrolled in a district

included the student’s schools attended and dates of

attendance, course schedules, instructors, grades,

attendance records, standardized test scores, and

personal identifying information. See Stringham Mar. 4,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 110-11; Britney Carter Mar. 7, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 63. The student information maintained

in each district’s database was used to calculate its

average daily membership for funding purposes. See

Stringham Mar. 4, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 119-20.

A student could be enrolled in only one school

district’s database at a time. The database management

program would prevent one school district from enrolling

a student who was already enrolled in another district.

See Bice Feb. 23, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 216; Sallee Feb.

25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 174-75, 235; Corkren Mar. 9,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 248. However, the State Department

of Education did not maintain or access databases for

9
private schools, and private school students were not

tracked. See Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 175;

Craig Mar. 7, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 248; Bice Feb. 23,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 216. Consequently, a private school

student could be enrolled in a public school district’s

database without triggering any errors.

B. Athens Renaissance School

Around 2014, the Athens City School District (which

is located in Limestone County, Alabama) opened the

Athens Renaissance School, a blended and virtual K-12

public school that became a stand-alone school in the

fall of 2016.3 See Johnson Feb. 23, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

73-74; Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 115-16.

“Blended” students received part of their instruction in

person and part of their instruction virtually; “virtual”

3. Prior to 2016, the Renaissance School operated

without a stand-alone school code, which meant that its
students were officially registered as attending
traditional schools within the Athens school district.
10
students received all of their instruction virtually.

Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 112, 124. The Athens

school district contracted with several companies to

obtain licenses for learning-management

systems--software platforms that provided curriculums,

course content, and assessments for the blended and

virtual students’ classes. A learning-management system

called Odysseyware was the Renaissance School’s main

curriculum provider. See id. at 119. Odysseyware did

not provide live instructors, requiring instead that

school systems using its software provide instructors and

administrators to oversee Odysseyware courses.

Also in 2014, the Athens school district’s board of

education adopted a policy authorizing the district’s

superintendent and the board to accept applications for

enrollment of nonresident students--students outside of

the district’s geographic area. Under this “Non-Resident

Student Admissions Policy,” the district was required to

charge $ 1,200 in annual tuition to any nonresident

student, subject to limited exceptions. Gov’t Ex. 1; see

11
also Johnson Feb. 23, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 80-82. The

following year, the State passed a law providing that

“[a] full-time student enrolled in a virtual program

shall be enrolled and count in the average daily

membership of the local school.” Ala. Code

§ 16-46A-2(a); see also Johnson Feb. 23, 2022, R.D Trial

Tr. 76. Shortly afterward, the district adopted a policy

under which the Renaissance School could enroll students

as either full-time or guest-enrolled students. See

Gov’t Ex. 1627. Full-time students were subject to the

district’s standard eligibility requirements and

enrollment procedures, such as the nonresident student

admissions policy; full-time resident students could

participate in Renaissance School courses and programs

for free, while full-time nonresident students would be

required to pay a nonresident tuition fee. All full-time

students were required to take a minimum number of

credits per year and would be considered truant if they

fell too far behind the pace of one or more of their

classes. In contrast, guest-enrolled students, who could

12
simultaneously remain enrolled in another public,

private, or home school, could take a limited number of

courses through the Renaissance School for a per-course

fee. With respect to guest-enrolled students, the policy

noted, “A fee is necessary because Athens City Schools

will NOT receive public funding for guest-enrolled

students.” Id. at 9 (emphasis in original).

In the summer before the 2015-2016 school year,

Holladay sought a waiver of certain State Department of

Education requirements as applied to the Athens district

and the Renaissance School. See Gov’t Ex. 1666. One of

his requests “would allow Athens City Schools to offer

one or more traditional, online, or blended courses to

students that are enrolled at other public and non-public

schools (or students that are home schooled) as ‘guest

students’ ... without enrolling them as a student in the

Athens City Schools.” Id. at 8. Holladay later stated

that he intended “to attract home school students,

private school students, and other non-traditional

students that have abandoned public education ... and to

13
enroll or ‘recover’ them as full-time students in our

school system.” Gov’t Ex. 1678 at 1. Despite this

reference to full-time students, he simultaneously

reiterated the difference between full-time students, who

were required to take a minimum number of credits per

year and could be counted toward the district’s average

daily membership, and guest-enrolled students, who could

not be counted toward average daily membership. See id.

at 2. Nothing in the proposed waiver indicated that the

district could enroll a full-time private school student

as a full-time virtual student at the Renaissance School.

See Bice Feb. 23, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 207-10, 215. In

November 2015, the State Department of Education

generally granted the waiver, subject to numerous

advisements. See Gov’t Ex. 1682. With respect to

Holladay’s request regarding guest enrollment of home

school and private school students, the department

advised that “‘Guest-enrolled’ students will not be

entered or enrolled into” the Athens school system’s

student database with the department and that “No

14
Foundation Program units are earned” for such students.

Id. at 4-5.

C. Agreements with Private Schools

In September 2015, Holladay entered into an agreement

with the administration of the Marengo Academy, a private

school in Linden, Marengo County, Alabama. Holladay

offered to provide Marengo Academy with Athens City

School District laptops, upgraded internet access, and

access to online courses through the Odysseyware

learning-management system licensed by the Athens

Renaissance School. See Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial

Tr. 52-53 (laptops), 56-57 (online courses), 71-81

(internet access). In exchange, Marengo Academy would

provide the Athens district with identifying information

and transcripts of its private school students. See id.

at 49-50. Holladay directed Athens district officials

to use this information to enroll Marengo Academy

students as full-time nonresident Renaissance School

15
students, who could be counted for purposes of the Athens

district’s average daily membership and funding

allocation, rather than guest-enrolled students, who

could not. See id.; Johnson Feb. 23, 2022, R.D. Trial

Tr. 77-79. Because private school students, such as

those attending Marengo Academy, did not appear in the

databases accessed by the State Department of Education,

the Athens district could enroll these students as

Renaissance School students without triggering any error.

The students whose information was used in this way

continued to attend Marengo Academy as full-time

students, continued to pay Marengo Academy the tuition

they had already been paying, and continued to receive

instruction from Marengo Academy teachers; they did not

pay tuition to the Athens Renaissance School, despite the

policy of the Athens district, and did not take full-time

course loads at the Renaissance School. See Corkren Mar.

9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 56-60; Johnson Feb. 23, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 88.

16
 In March 2016, Holladay met with the state

superintendent of education and other representatives of

the State Department of Education. See Craig Mar. 7,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 214-20. The state superintendent

raised two concerns about the Athens school district’s

virtual-student enrollment practices. First, the state

superintendent advised that the Renaissance School should

refrain from enrolling full-time virtual students who

resided more than 100 miles outside of Athens. See id.

at 215-16. Second, the state superintendent expressed

concerns about the Athens district’s practice of

enrolling private school students at the Renaissance

School and counting them as full-time students to

increase the district’s average daily membership. See

id. 217-20; Gov’t Ex. 151. With respect to the first

issue regarding enrollment of students substantially

outside of Athens, Holladay agreed to discontinue the

practice. See Craig Mar. 7, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 215-16.

With respect to the private-school issue, in a subsequent

email, the attorney for the Athens district’s board of

17
education stated that the district would “pull back” and

would “not enroll any full-time student into its

Renaissance School unless that student first presents

papers showing that, if he/she was enrolled in any public

or private school, that [sic] he/she has withdrawn from

such school.” Gov’t Ex. 151 at 2 (emphasis in original).

But Holladay did not “pull back.”

Around the time of this meeting, Holladay instructed

Corkren, who was unaffiliated with the Athens school

district, to form a limited liability corporation. See

Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 53-54; see also

Gov’t Ex. 2438 (state record of formation of Corkren’s

corporation). Corkren, acting through his corporation,

would offer incentives for private schools to provide

student information that could be used to enroll the

private school students as Renaissance School students.

Toward the end of the 2015-2016 school year, Corkren

assisted in managing the records of Marengo Academy

students enrolled at the Renaissance School. See Corkren

Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 58-60. Then, in April 2016,

18
his corporation, Educational Opportunities and

Management, LLC, also known as Ed-Op, entered a contract

with the Athens school district. The contract’s preamble

explained that “there are anticipated to be a significant

number of [Renaissance School] full-time and guest

enrollment students in the Marengo County, Alabama

area ... during the 2016-17 school year.” Gov’t Ex. 1657

at 2. In exchange for Ed-Op’s “assistance with respect

to the logistics and administrative issues presented by

serving [these] Students,” the Athens district agreed to

compensate Ed-Op with monthly payments of $ 45 per

student enrolled at the Renaissance School by Ed-Op. Id.

at 2, 4. Holladay instructed Corkren to split a portion

of these monthly payments between the two of them. See

Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 101-02.

In May 2016, Carter, then the Athens City School

District’s coordinator of virtual programs, organized a

district “Digital Learning Showcase,” attended by

himself, Holladay, and Corkren, as well as

representatives of the Jackson Academy in Jackson, Clarke

19
County, Alabama, the Pickens Academy in Carrollton,

Pickens County, Alabama, the Lakeside School in Eufaula,

Barbour County, Alabama, and the Southern Academy in

Greensboro, Hale County, Alabama. See id. at 103-06.

According to Corkren, the purpose of the event was “[t]o

recruit ... private schools and their students.” Id. at

105. The Athens district directly and indirectly paid

for lodging and meals for the private school

representatives. See Gov’t Ex. 172A (email from Carter

to private school administrators); Corkren Mar. 9, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 108. During meetings and visits with the

private school administrators, Holladay, Corkren, and

Carter encouraged the private schools to provide the

Athens district with student information, including

student and parent identifying information, transcripts,

and report cards. In exchange, the district would

provide the private schools with various benefits,

including Odysseyware access, laptops, improved internet

capabilities, standardized testing, and monetary

payments. See Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 83-93,

20
118-22; Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 134-35;

Mickleboro Feb. 28, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 77-88, 106-08.

Documents prepared by Carter advertised the benefits the

private schools would receive. See Gov’t Ex. 129B

(PowerPoint presentation for Southern Academy

advertising “No Risk for Southern Academy” and “They are

still your students”); Gov’t Ex. 200B (condensed list of

the benefits). Administrators from Jackson Academy,

Pickens Academy, Lakeside School, and Southern Academy

agreed to the proposed exchange, joining the Marengo

Academy as participants. See Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 118-22, 129.

Throughout the summer of 2016, Corkren collected

student information from the private schools using a

template designed by Carter. See id. at 132-45; Gov’t

Ex. 230B (template that Carter emailed to Corkren). This

information included students’ names, genders, grades,

birthdates and ages, social security numbers, races and

ethnicities, and residential addresses. See, e.g., Gov’t

255B (information collected from Jackson Academy).

21
Corkren sent the spreadsheets he collected to Carter.

See Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 140-41, 145-47.

Carter then shared the student information with Athens

district officials for enrollment in the district’s

student database. See Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial

Tr. 139-41.

Carter also prepared several forms purporting to

alter the status of the private school students. First,

he prepared “Verification Release Forms” that were

prepopulated with the collected student information.

E.g., Gov’t Ex. 259B (forms for Jackson Academy); see

also Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 156-59. These

forms, which included the misappropriated header of the

“Alabama Independent School Association,” indicated that

the “Purpose of Verification” was “UN-ENROLLMENT.” E.g.,

Gov’t Ex. 259B. Each form contained a line for a private

school’s “HEAD OF SCHOOL OR REGISTRAR” to sign. Id.

Carter sent the prepopulated forms to Corkren, who in

turn sent them to private school officials for their

signatures. See Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

22
160-62. Based on Corkren’s representations, the private

school headmasters or assistant headmasters signed the

forms. See id. at 152, 155. Corkren collected the

administrator-signed forms and returned them to Athens

district officials. The district kept the forms as

nominal proof that the students had unenrolled from their

private schools before enrolling in the district’s

Renaissance School. Corkren characterized the

unenrollment of the private school students as a “farce.”

Id. at 149-50.

Carter also prepared a template “Athens City Schools

Virtual/Non-Resident Enrollment Form,” which Corkren

shared with the private school administrators to enroll

private school students at the Renaissance School. Gov’t

Ex. 258B; see also Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

173-74. Each form required the student’s name, a parent

or guardian’s name, and the student’s address, grade

level, date of birth, and school. In addition to

ostensibly enrolling each student in the Athens district,

the form also included a release consenting for the

23
Renaissance School to share the student’s educational

records with Ed-Op. Corkren again sent the forms to the

private school headmasters to be completed. Where the

form required the signature of a “GUARDIAN/AUTHORIZED

OFFICIAL,” Corkren instructed the headmasters that they

could sign on behalf of their students. See Corkren Mar.

9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 165-67.

Headmasters or assistant headmasters from the

private schools completed these forms, in the vast

majority of cases without the consent of the students’

parents or guardians, and provided them, as well as

students’ transcripts, to Corkren. In turn, Corkren

delivered the forms and records to Carter for entry into

the Athens district’s student database. See id. at

132-33, 167-77. After receiving the student information,

Carter instructed district officials to refer to the

private schools as “EOs,” short for Ed-Op, with each

private school receiving its own numbered code (EO1, EO2,

etc.). See Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 131-32.

At Carter’s direction, district officials used the

24
information received to enroll the private school

students as full-time students at the Renaissance School.

See id. at 137-38; Britney Carter Mar. 7, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 66-69; see also Gov’t Ex. 366 (email from Carter

celebrating the enrollment of the Ed-Op students).

Holladay, Corkren, and Carter encountered a problem

with some of the student information that had been

collected from the private schools. Some of the private

school students lived out of state in Georgia or

Mississippi. See Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

208-09. The Athens district officials who had been

tasked to enroll the private school students informed

Carter of this problem. See Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 148-50. To address this obstacle to enrolling

the students as Renaissance School students, Holladay

instructed Corkren to create in-state addresses for those

students. See Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

214-15. Carter similarly encouraged Corkren to change

the addresses, sending him a to-do list that included the

task “Address Change on the out of state addresses.”

25
Gov’t Ex. 368. Carter emailed two Renaissance School

employees that Corkren would “send us our new addresses

for our EO students with out of state addresses.” Gov’t

Ex. 369. Using vacant Alabama addresses that he found

online, Corkren created fake addresses for the

out-of-state students and emailed them to Carter. See

Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 216-19. He explained

to Carter how he had created the fake addresses. See id.

at 220. Carter then directed Athens district officials

to use the fake addresses to enroll the out-of-state

students in the district’s student database. See Sallee

Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 154, 182.

In exchange for the private schools’ student

information, Corkren, with Holladay’s and Carter’s

knowledge, delivered Athens City School District laptops

and monetary payments to the participating private

schools and their employees. See Corkren Mar. 9, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 221-31; Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial

Tr. 30-35, 47-48, 56-57; Mickleboro Feb. 28, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 111-15. Corkren occasionally consulted Carter

26
to determine whether a payment requested by a private

school administrator had been “promised” previously.

Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 48.

In addition to the Athens district’s arrangements

with the private schools, in the summer of 2016 Holladay

connected Corkren with Sisk to discuss a similar process

to enroll students from other private schools as virtual

students in the Limestone County School District. See

Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 196. The Limestone

district and Ed-Op entered into a contract that

paralleled the contract between the Athens district and

Ed-Op. See Gov’t Ex. 1623. While the Limestone contract

provided for the same $ 45 monthly per-student payments

to Ed-Op as in the Athens contract, see id. at 3, Corkren

and Sisk subsequently edited the contract, without

approval of the Limestone district’s board of education,

to increase the amount to $ 55, see Sisk Mar. 3, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 165-70; Corkren Mar. 9, 2022, R.D. Trial

Tr. 198-99; Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 28-29.

Using the Athens district’s Odysseyware license and

27
similar forms to those used for the Renaissance School

enrollments, Corkren and Holladay facilitated an exchange

of benefits for private school student information

between the Limestone district and the Monroe Academy in

Monroeville, Monroe County, Alabama. See Corkren Mar.

9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 205-07. As was the case for the

five private schools that cooperated with the Athens

district, parents or guardians of the Monroe Academy

students did not sign the forms, and the students did not

intend to unenroll from Monroe Academy and enroll in the

Limestone district’s virtual school.

Once the private school students had been enrolled

as students in the Athens district or the Limestone

district, Holladay, Corkren, and Carter required private

school transcripts and report cards for entry into the

student databases. As Corkren testified, if Carter had

input the students’ Odysseyware grades, rather than

“their actual [private] school grades,” the students

would have had almost all zeros and would not appear to

be full-time public school students. Corkren Mar. 10,

28
2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 58-59. Therefore, Carter created

an Ed-Op form to collect private school grades and, in

Corkren’s words, “[t]o hide the fact the grades came from

private school students.” Id. at 62; see also Gov’t Ex.

507B. Despite the fact that Ed-Op did not employ any

teachers or counselors, see Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 61-62, the “Virtual Student Grade Verification

Form” prepared by Carter represented that “The Ed-Op

administration and our certified teachers/counselors

assessed and confirmed” the awarded credits, Gov’t Ex.

507B.

Instead of using this form, however, Corkren simply

asked the private school headmasters and assistant

headmasters to send him the students’ report cards. See

Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 64, 192-93. Where

the report cards contained the names of private schools

or their instructors, Corkren or Carter edited them to

include Ed-Op’s name and information, as well as the

numbered “EO” code for the private school. See id. at

72-98. For most private schools, Carter sent the report

29
cards to Athens district officials for entry into the

district's database. See Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 155-57. With respect to Monroe Academy, Carter

edited the report cards and sent them to the Limestone

district. See Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

97-99. Within the Athens district, administrators would

assign the private school students to classes within the

district that were “close” to their private school

classes. Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 156-60.

Carter supervised this process. See id. at 185-87. The

process of modifying and inputting report cards for the

private school students continued as Corkren received

report cards from the private school administrators; many

of the private schools were late in delivering the report

cards. See Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 66.

When one Athens district official raised concerns about

delays in receiving and inputting report cards for the

“Ed-Op” students, Carter reassured her that Corkren was

“finaliz[ing] report cards for all his EO’s” and that

30
Ed-Op was responsible for “a couple of thousand” students

at “other schools in Alabama.” Gov’t Ex. 655.

In early 2017, Holladay invited Tutt to assume

responsibilities similar to those of Corkren. Like

Corkren, Tutt formed a limited liability corporation,

Tutt Educational Services, LLC, and agreed to recruit

private schools to share their student information with

the Athens district in the 2017-2018 school year. See

Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 170, 177.

Holladay’s wife also formed a limited liability

corporation, Sage Professional Development, LLC, to

receive a portion of Ed-Op’s revenue for the Holladays’

personal benefit. See id. at 217. During the 2017-2018

school year, the Athens district continued to make

monthly payments to Ed-Op. The 2017-2018 agreement

maintained the $ 45 payments for each newly enrolled

student but more than tripled the rate to $ 150 for

students who had been enrolled in the previous year. See

Gov’t Ex. 1648 at 4. However, in the invoices that

Corkren submitted to Carter, he billed for all students

31
at the higher $ 150 rate. See Corkren Mar. 11, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 28-29, 31-33; see also, e.g., Gov’t Ex.

1151 (November 2017 invoice). Ed-Op contracted to pay

tens of thousands of dollars to Tutt Educational Services

each month, and Tutt Educational Services in turn

contracted to pay Sage Professional Development $ 16,500

per month. See Gov’t Ex. 868E (contract between Ed-Op

and Tutt Educational Services); Gov’t Ex. 868D (contract

between Tutt Educational Services and Sage Professional

Development). Sisk and the Limestone district did not

continue to participate in the scheme during that school

year. See Gov’t Ex. 1703 (notice of termination).

Tutt negotiated an exchange of benefits--online

curriculum, laptops, and internet access--for private

school student information with Meadowview Christian

School in Selma, Dallas County, Alabama, and Abbeville

Christian Academy in Abbeville, Henry County, Alabama.

See Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 177, 225-26;

Corkren Mar. 11, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 23-24. He also

drafted agreements purporting to hire Meadowview

32
Christian School employees as independent contractors of

Ed-Op. See Gov’t Ex. 988B; Gov’t Ex. 989B (batches of

contracts). As Corkren testified, the purpose of these

contracts was, “To act like I had teachers and to be able

to use them with testing.” Corkren Mar. 11, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 27; see also Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial

Tr. 210, 219-21. Holladay’s wife obtained the Meadowview

student information and sent it to Corkren, who forwarded

it to Carter. See Gov’t Ex. 1035A; Corkren Mar. 11,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 24. Because Corkren did not forward

this information until November 2017, after the end of

the period for calculating the Athens district’s average

daily membership, see Gov’t Ex. 1141A, the district

official who entered this information backdated the

enrollments to August 2017. See Britney Carter Mar. 7,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 65-69, 72-74. She testified that

she “would have been asked to do that” by Carter. Id.

at 73-74. Ultimately, in July 2018, Carter directed the

same official to withdraw the Meadowview students who had

been enrolled. See id. at 74-76. She backdated the

33
withdrawals to the same enrollment dates in August 2017;

again, she testified that she “wouldn’t have chosen the

date” and “assume[d]” that Carter told her to backdate

the withdrawals. Id. at 76.

During the 2017-2018 school year, as previously,

several private schools provided student report cards to

Tutt or Corkren to be entered into the Athens district’s

student database. As previously, Corkren modified the

report cards to omit any mention of the private schools

or their instructors, pursuant to Carter’s instructions.

See Corkren Mar. 11, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 65-73.

D. Investigation by State Department of Education

In February 2017, officials from the Alabama State

Department of Education initiated an audit of the

Limestone County School District’s virtual-student

information, after discovering that the enrollment forms

had been signed by a private school headmaster, rather

than a parent or guardian. See Corkren Mar. 10, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 104. In connection with the department’s

34
audit, and because the undiscovered Athens district forms

had also been signed by headmasters or assistant

headmasters, Holladay directed Corkren to obtain

enrollment forms that contained parent or guardian

signatures, rather than the signatures of the private

school officials. See id. at 105-07. Carter clarified

which forms Corkren needed to obtain. See id. at 110.

To accelerate the process, Corkren, at Holladay’s

direction, offered to pay the private schools for each

signed enrollment form they collected. See id. at

107-08. Carter, aware that the private schools were

being paid to complete these forms, approved

reimbursements by the Athens district for these payments.

See id. at 126, 133-34. Corkren delivered the new

enrollment forms to Carter for placement in the

district’s files for the private school students. See

id. at 120-26.

In March 2017, in response to growing concerns that

the Athens district was continuing to enroll private

school students as full-time virtual students, the State

35
Department of Education issued a memorandum proposing a

statewide definition of a “full-time virtual student” as

“one who is currently enrolled and participating in a

number of virtual courses sufficient for matriculation

from grade to grade ... and is not simultaneously

enrolled in or attending another public or non-public

K-12 school.” Gov’t Ex. 1702; see also Craig Mar. 7,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 228-31. This was not a new

requirement for the Athens district; as one State

Department of Education official testified, the Athens

district had already agreed not to enroll private school

students as full-time virtual students. See Craig Mar.

7, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 231-32. In April 2017, Holladay

emailed a State Department of Education official to share

that the Athens district would use an “[u]pdated

enrollment form” to enroll new students “starting today”

and that the district would “hav[e] all current virtual

students re-enroll before continuing next year.” Gov’t

Ex. 707A. The attached enrollment form, which Holladay

forwarded from Carter, included the definition of

36
“full-time virtual student” from the State Department of

Education memorandum, as well as language similar to the

representation that the Athens district’s attorney had

made to the department back in March 2016. Gov’t Ex.

707B at 2.

Subsequently, in August 2017, the state

superintendent of education sent a letter to Holladay

indicating that the State Department of Education had

information about the enrollment of private school

students in the Renaissance School that “call[ed] into

question the legitimacy of a significant portion of the

2017 funded [average daily membership] reported by ACS.”

Gov’t Ex. 1592B at 3. (Of course, ACS stood for Athens

City Schools.) The letter informed Holladay that the

department would “need to consider, among other things,

an extrapolation of disallowed [average daily membership]

and corresponding consequences in funding.” Id. State

Department of Education officials met with Holladay and

Carter and instructed them that the private school

students needed to be removed immediately. See Owsley

37
Mar. 14, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 201-06. Holladay and Carter

insisted that the Athens district had removed all private

school students from the Renaissance School. See id. at

207. When Holladay learned, through these discussions,

that the State Department of Education had confirmed that

Lakeside School students had been enrolled at the

Renaissance School, he directed Corkren to discontinue

payments to that school and not to enroll any Lakeside

School students during the 2017-2018 school year. See

Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 242-43.

In response to the State Department of Education

investigation, the Athens district placed Carter in

charge of an audit of the Renaissance School’s student

enrollment. See Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

243. Tutt notified the private school headmasters that

Carter would be calling them for the audit and directed

the headmasters to state that the private school students

were not enrolled at the private schools. See id. at

253-57. In one instance, Carter asked a private school

official whether the students were enrolled at the

38
private school and the official answered that they were.

Carter then spoke to Tutt, and Tutt instructed the

official that she was supposed to say the students were

not enrolled at the private school. When Carter called

the official back, however, the official reiterated that

the students were enrolled. See id. at 258.

Related to this audit, Carter requested student

records from Corkren and Ed-Op. First, from his private

email address, Carter sent Corkren a spreadsheet of the

audited students and their private schools. See Gov’t

Ex. 1044B. The next day, Carter sent Corkren an email

from his official email address containing a subset of

the previous list, this time omitting mention of the

private schools. See Gov’t Ex. 1046. This email asked

Corkren to “provide verification of work completed” for

the listed students. Id. To support the claim to the

State Department of Education that all students

purportedly enrolled at the Renaissance School were

taking full-time course loads, Carter directed Corkren

to prepare Athens City School District Odysseyware

39
course-completion reports for certain private school

students. See Gov’t Ex. 1055A. Because the students

were not, in fact, taking full-time course loads through

Odysseyware, Corkren informed Carter and Holladay that

it would take time for him to “fabricate” the reports.

Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 266; Corkren Mar.

11, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 6. Carter replied, “Trey wants

you to get it done. We need you to get it done.” Corkren

Mar. 11, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 6. Holladay similarly told

Corkren, “I need you to get it done some way, some how.”

Id. Corkren then prepared falsified reports showing that

the students had taken and completed full-time course

loads. See id. at 7-14. He sent these reports to Carter,

with the warning that he should deliver paper, rather

than digital, copies to the State Department of Education

or else “they’ll know it’s been edited.” Id. at 15.

Carter delivered the reports to Holladay and informed

Corkren that the reports would be sent to the State. See

id. at 15-16. Carter emailed 20 of these falsified

40
reports to the interim state superintendent of education

and other state officials. See Gov’t Ex. 1181.

Subsequently, Holladay learned that the State

Department of Education had requested enrollment records

from private schools to determine whether private school

students had been enrolled as full-time students in the

Athens district. He directed Corkren and Tutt to tell

the private school officials that they were under no

legal obligation to provide the data to the department.

See Corkren Mar. 11, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 86-87. Per

Holladay’s instructions, Corkren gave money to Tutt to

bribe at least one private school headmaster not to

answer the letter, although Corkren could not say whether

the bribe actually occurred. See id. at 87-88.

E. Flow of Money

As a result of the arrangements between the Athens

City School District and the private schools, the

district’s average daily membership included over 750

full-time private school students in the 2016-2017 school

41
year and over 500 such students in 2017-2018. See

Stringham Mar. 4, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 136-37, 148. Some

of the students enrolled at the Renaissance School took

no courses through the Odysseyware license provided by

the Athens district. Others either took a small number

of elective courses through Odysseyware, which were

administered by private school employees, or took private

school courses in which the teachers used Odysseyware

assignments to supplement the traditional coursework.

See Corkren Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 14-15;

Mickleboro Feb. 28, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 110-11. Most,

if not all, of the students did not take, let alone

complete, the minimum course load through Odysseyware

that would allow them to be considered full-time virtual

students under the Athens district’s policy. See Corkren

Mar. 10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 6, 58-59.

The inclusion of private school students

significantly inflated the Athens district’s average

daily membership. In the fall of 2012, the district’s

average daily membership was 3,179.75. See Gov’t Ex.

42
2472. By fall of 2014 two years later, it had increased

by 186.4 to 3,366.15. See Gov’t Ex. 2474. In the fall

of 2015, when Holladay arranged for Marengo Academy

students to be enrolled, the district’s average daily

membership increased by 449.2 to 3,815.35--a one-year

increase more than double the combined increase of the

preceding two years. See Gov’t Ex. 2475. Then, in the

fall of 2016, the district’s average daily membership

increased by more than double that amount, 930.46, up to

a peak of 4,745.81. See Gov’t Ex. 2476. Although private

school students remained enrolled at the Renaissance

School in the 2017-2018 school year, average daily

membership dropped as private school students were

withdrawn in light of the investigation by the State

Department of Education.

The increase in the Athens district’s average daily

membership during this period increased the share of

funding that the district received from the State through

the Foundation Program. Between fiscal year 2014, based

on the fall 2012 average daily membership, and fiscal

43
year 2018, based on the fall 2016 number, the district’s

annual Foundation Program allocation increased by nearly

$ 10,000,000, from $ 17,086,943 to $ 26,931,273. See

Gov’t Ex. 2472; Gov’t Ex. 2476.

Over the course of the 2016-2017 school year, Ed-Op

received over $ 500,000 from the Athens City School

District and over $ 120,000 from the Limestone County

School District. See Gov’t Ex. 2515 (Athens); Gov’t Ex.

2516 (Limestone). In the 2017-2018 school year, the

Athens district paid Ed-Op over $ 1,000,000. See Gov’t

Ex. 2515. Of the nearly $ 2,000,000 received between May

2016 and June 2018, Ed-Op paid over $ 600,000, either

directly or through Tutt Educational Services, to private

schools and private school employees. See Gov’t Ex.

2539; Gov’t Ex. 2552; see also Gill Mar. 15, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 35, 105-16 (disaggregating the payments to

private school employees and to each private school).

Corkren transferred portions of Ed-Op’s remaining

funds directly into his personal bank account and,

through Tutt Educational Services and Sage Professional

44
Development, into the personal bank accounts of Tutt and

the Holladays. See Gill Mar. 15, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

28, 59-60. Corkren also used Ed-Op funds to make a

donation to a charity of Sisk’s choice, most of which was

later wired into Sisk’s personal bank account. See Sisk

Mar. 3, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 170-75; Gill Mar. 15, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 119-20. Finally, Corkren testified that

he withdrew money from his and Ed-Op’s accounts in order

to make cash payments to Holladay and Carter, including

monthly payments of $ 1,000 to Carter. See Corkren Mar.

10, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 194-208; Corkren Mar. 11, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 88, 91-92.

Due to concerns about the investigation by the State

Department of Education, the scheme concluded after the

end of the 2017-2018 school year. See Corkren Mar. 11,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 97. Holladay and Corkren prepared

a termination-of-services agreement, under which Ed-Op

received over $ 300,000, included above, to be divided

among private schools, private school employees, Corkren,

the Holladays, and Tutt. See id. at 99-103; see also

45
Owsley Mar. 14, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 263-72. The Athens

district paid roughly $ 220,000 of this amount based on

an invoice for one quantity of “Digital Education

Services,” Gov’t Ex. 1500B, which Carter approved

because, according to Corkren, “he knew what it was.”

Corkren Mar. 11, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 102-03.

III. CO-CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS

The court first memorializes the reasons supporting

the admission of any co-conspirator statements against

Carter. “A statement made by a coconspirator during the

course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is admissible

as nonhearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence

801(d)(2)(E).” United States v. Byrom, 910 F.2d 725, 734

(11th Cir. 1990). In order to admit a co-conspirator

statement under this rule, the existence of a conspiracy

and the defendant’s participation in it are preliminary

questions of fact that must be resolved by the court

pursuant to Federal Rule Evidence 104(a). See Bourjaily

v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76 (1987). For each

46
statement, “the government must prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the

conspiracy included the declarant and the defendant

against whom the statement is offered, and (3) the

statement was made during the course of and in

furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v.

Underwood, 446 F.3d 1340, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2006). “In

determining the admissibility of co-conspirator

statements, the trial court may consider both the

co-conspirator’s statements and independent external

evidence.” United States v. Hasner, 340 F.3d 1261, 1274

(11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). In its discretion, the

court may “admit the out-of-court statements on the

condition that the government subsequently produce

independent evidence” satisfying these three

requirements. United States v. McGregor, 824 F. Supp.

2d 1339, 1343 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (Thompson, J.) (citing

United States v. Miller, 664 F.2d 826, 827-28 (11th Cir.

1981) (per curiam)). In this case, the court, in its

discretion, admitted any out-of-court statements of

47
co-conspirators before all evidence of the conspiracy had

been received.

A. Existence of Conspiracy

“A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more

persons to accomplish an unlawful plan.” United States

v. Chandler, 388 F.3d 796, 805 (11th Cir. 2004).

“[A]greement is the essential evil at which the crime ...

is directed.” Id. at 806 (quoting Iannelli v. United

States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 n.10 (1975)). “The agreement

need not be shown to have been explicit” and “can instead

be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the

case.” Iannelli, 420 U.S. at 777 n.10. The government

may establish the existence of a conspiracy “through

either direct or circumstantial evidence, such as

inferences from the conduct of the alleged participants.”

United States v. Farris, 77 F.3d 391, 394 (11th Cir.

1996).

48
 Carter conceded that the government proved the

existence of a conspiracy by a preponderance of the

evidence. See Def.’s Resp. to Gov’t’s Proposed Findings

of Fact (Doc. 290) at 2-3. Specifically, he conceded

that the government proved the existence of a conspiracy

that included Holladay, Corkren, Tutt, and Sisk. See id.

Based on the facts described above, the court agrees that

the government met its burden to prove by a preponderance

of the evidence the existence of a conspiracy including,

at a minimum, these four codefendants.4

Overwhelming evidence proves the existence of an

unlawful agreement to acquire student information from

private schools and to use this information to inflate

the enrollment numbers, and thus the state funding, of

the Athens school district and the Limestone school

4. Carter contested whether the government proved by

a preponderance of the evidence that Holladay’s wife
willfully joined the conspiracy. Because the court is
unaware of any out-of-court statements by Holladay’s wife
offered against Carter at trial, it sees no need to reach
the issue of her involvement.
49
district. The conspiracy, often through Corkren and

later Tutt, provided benefits, funded by the Athens

district, to private schools and their administrators and

employees to induce them to turn over student information

and sign various consent forms, in most cases without the

knowledge of students and their parents or guardians.

Under Carter, Athens district officials used this

information to enroll private school students as

full-time students at the Renaissance School, in

contravention of the directives of the State Department

of Education and the Athens district’s own policies.

When necessary to facilitate this enrollment process or

to obscure the scheme from detection by the State

Department of Education, Holladay, Corkren, and Carter

altered, fabricated, and conveyed records to create and

maintain the façade that the students in question were

not private school students but instead proper Athens

district students completing full-time course loads at

the Renaissance School. In addition to the direct

testimony of Corkren and various Athens district

50
employees involved in the registration process, testimony

of students and parents reflects that the district

created and maintained records for students who had

sometimes never heard of the Renaissance School.

Depending on the student, these records included teachers

that the students did not know, courses that they did not

take, grades that they did not receive, and addresses

where they did not reside. The evidence amply supports

that Holladay, Corkren, Tutt, and Sisk participated in a

conspiracy.

B. Carter’s Involvement

Notwithstanding his concession regarding the

existence of a conspiracy, Carter disputed that the

government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that

he was a willful participant in it. He argued that, at

best, the evidence may have reflected that he “advanced

[the] agreement” without “willfully and knowingly joining

the conspiracy.” Def. Carter’s Resp. to Gov’t’s Proposed

Findings of Fact (Doc. 290) at 4. The court disagrees.

51
 Proof of a defendant’s involvement in a conspiracy

requires “that the defendant knew about [the conspiracy]

and that he voluntarily agreed to join it.” Chandler,

388 F.3d at 806 (emphasis omitted). Like the existence

of a conspiracy, a defendant’s participation in a

conspiracy “need not be proved by direct evidence” and

“may be inferred from a development and collocation of

circumstances.” United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487,

497 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Glasser v. United States,

315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)). “There is ‘rarely any direct

evidence of an agreement to join a criminal conspiracy,

and thus the defendant’s assent can be inferred from acts

which furthered the conspiracy’s purpose.’” United

States v. Miller, 693 F.2d 1051, 1053 (11th Cir. 1982)

(per curiam) (quoting United States v. Middlebrooks, 618

F.2d 273, 278 (5th Cir. 1980)). “The government need not

prove that a defendant participated in every stage of the

conspiracy or had direct contact with each of the other

alleged co-conspirators,” so long as the defendant “was

52
aware of [the conspiracy’s] essential nature.” Reeves,

742 F.3d at 497-98.

The evidence at trial proves by a preponderance of

the evidence that Carter, like his codefendants,

willfully joined the conspiracy. At a high level, Carter

was Corkren’s immediate contact within the Athens City

School District and the Renaissance School in the

day-to-day operation of the conspiracy. See Corkren Mar.

9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 61 (“[Carter] was the guy I had

to report to and work with to make it work.”); Sallee

Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 113, 129-30. Carter and

Corkren frequently communicated about the private schools

and private school students by phone, through Carter’s

official school email address, and, at Carter’s

direction, through Carter’s private email address. See,

e.g., Corkren Mar. 11, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 215

(testifying that Carter and Corkren participated in over

900 calls with one another over the course of the

conspiracy). Corkren testified that he communicated with

Carter about many of his activities in furtherance of the

53
conspiracy, such as Ed-Op’s payments to the private

schools and private school teachers. See Corkren Mar.

9, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 125-26; Corkren Mar. 11, 2022,

R.D. Trial Tr. 65. Within the Athens district, Carter

instructed school officials that they were not to have

any contact with Corkren or with the Ed-Op (that is,

private school) students and their parents. See Sallee

Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 135-36 (“[Carter] actually

explicitly said, do not even say good morning to

[Corkren].”); id. at 147 (“[Carter] said, you don’t talk

to Trey about Ed Op. You talk to me.”); Britney Carter

Mar. 7, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 104-05.

In his role at the intersection between Ed-Op and

the Athens district, Carter participated in and directed

fraudulent conduct of the conspiracy. Among other steps

taken, he recruited private schools to share their

student information with the district. He prepared forms

to collect this information and to create the appearance

that the students had unenrolled from their private

schools and enrolled in the Renaissance School.

54
Alongside Holladay, Carter instructed Corkren to create

fake Alabama addresses for out-of-state private school

students and told Athens district officials to use these

addresses to enroll the students. Carter edited student

report cards and transcripts to omit any mention of the

students’ private schools, and he instructed Corkren to

do the same. Then, when the State Department of Education

requested more detailed academic records as part of its

investigation, Carter told Corkren that he needed to

fabricate reports indicating that the private school

students had taken and completed full course loads

through Odysseyware.

The evidence also proves that Carter’s participation

in the conspiracy was knowing and voluntary. As

described above, Carter’s efforts to conceal the

enrollment of private school students at the Renaissance

School are considerable evidence of his intent to further

the conspiracy’s unlawful objective. Cf. United States

v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1197 (11th Cir. 2010)

(explaining that “the extent to which the parties went

55
to conceal their bribes is powerful evidence of their

corrupt intent”). The fact that Carter continued to

conceal the number of private school students enrolled

in the Athens district after the State Department of

Education had explicitly directed him and Holladay to

disenroll all such students belies his argument that he

lacked any fraudulent intent.

Carter’s own statements further support his

awareness of the conspiracy’s unlawful objective. In

instructing one Athens district official not to

communicate with Holladay about Ed-Op, Carter said, “I

was brought here to be the fall guy if this goes south,

and that’s why I make the big bucks.” Sallee Feb. 25,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 147. In instructing another Athens

district official not to deduct Marengo Academy students

from Ed-Op’s monthly invoices even after the August 2017

directive from the State Department of Education, he

stated similarly, “[I]f this thing goes south, I may be

the fall guy.” Owsley Mar. 14, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

216-17. Carter clearly knew what was going on and clearly

56
was a participant in the illegal scheme for “the big

bucks.”

Nevertheless, Carter contended that the evidence

fails to support that he agreed to participate in the

conspiracy because he “never asked for any money,” and,

even if the court credits Corkren’s testimony that he

made cash payments to Carter totaling $ 21,000, Corkren

also testified that the payments were “intended to be for

Dr. Carter’s mother as a gift.” Def. Carter’s Resp. to

Govt’s Proposed Findings of Fact (Doc. 290) at 4. To the

extent personal gain is probative of Carter’s intent to

join the conspiracy, but see United States v. Toll, 804

F.3d 1344, 1357 (11th Cir. 2015) (“That [defendant] never

directly received the proceeds of the fraud is

immaterial.”), direct and indirect evidence proves by a

preponderance of the evidence that Carter benefitted and

intended to benefit from his furtherance of the

conspiracy.

First, as noted, Corkren testified that he paid

Carter $ 21,000 over the course of the conspiracy.

57
Notwithstanding Corkren’s testimony that the payments

were “a gift to [Carter’s] mother,” Corkren Mar. 11,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 92, his testimony that the payments

stopped when “the endeavor ended” is circumstantial

evidence that Carter knew the payments were proceeds of

the conspiracy, id. While Carter disputes that he ever

received these payments, his bank statement partially

corroborates Corkren’s account. Between February 2016

and June 2018, a period that closely maps onto the

duration of the conspiracy, $ 18,311 in cash was

deposited into Carter’s bank account. See Gov’t Ex.

2524. After the end of the conspiracy, from June 2018

until at least April 2020, there were no cash deposits.

See Gill Mar. 15, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 75.

Second, apart from any cash payments, Carter received

numerous promotions and supplemental contracts,

including salary increases, within the Athens district

between October 2015 and July 2019. Holladay recommended

each of these changes to Carter’s job classification.

See Gov’t Ex. 1658 (coordinator of virtual school); Gov’t

58
Ex. 1685 (director of innovative programs); Gov’t Ex.

1713 (executive director of innovative programs); Gov’t

Ex. 1746 (interim principal of Athens Middle School);

Gov’t Ex. 1750 (principal of Athens High School); Gov’t

Ex. 1749 (executive director of innovation); see also

Owsley Mar. 14, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 274-82 (discussing

these promotions and corresponding pay increases).

Consequently, between January 2016 and April 2020,

Carter’s monthly salary increased by 74.26 %, see Gill

Mar. 15, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 72, making him the second

highest paid employee in the school district, see Owsley

Mar. 14, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 282. Many of Carter’s

promotions and pay raises occurred during the course of

the conspiracy, from which it is undisputed that Holladay

personally benefitted. Together with the extensive

evidence of Carter’s contributions to the conspiracy and

Carter’s own acknowledgment that he was paid “the big

bucks” to be the “fall guy,” Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 147, Carter’s career advancement within the

Athens district supports that he benefitted and intended

59
to benefit financially from his acts in furtherance of

the conspiracy. As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

has explained, the fact that a defendant “was able to

remain employed in a management position[] and received

a respectable salary for allowing the fraud scheme to

fester unabated” is evidence that said defendant “shared

the ‘conspiratorial goals.’” Toll, 804 F.3d at 1357.

Third, Carter created his own company, Phoenix

Educational Services, LLC, in December 2017. See Gov’t

Ex. 2437. Carter dissolved it in December 2020 on the

basis that it “[n]ever opened for business.” Id. at 10.

Corkren testified that the stated purpose of Carter’s

corporation, like those created by Corkren, Tutt, and

Holladay’s wife, was for Carter to “make money doing the

work for [Corkren].” Corkren Mar. 11, 2022, R.D. Trial

Tr. 105-06. While the evidence does not reflect that the

company ever received any payments from Ed-Op, Corkren’s

testimony undermines Carter’s argument that he lacked any

intent to gain from participation in the conspiracy.

60
 In sum, the evidence proves by at least a

preponderance that Carter knowingly and voluntarily

participated in the conspiracy with Holladay, Corkren,

Tutt, and Sisk. The testimony of Corkren, corroborated

by other witnesses and by documents created by Carter,

establishes that Carter furthered and intended to further

the conspiracy to commit fraud through the Athens City

School District and Ed-Op, for the benefit of himself and

his co-conspirators.

C. Statements in Furtherance of Conspiracy

Carter has not identified any specific out-of-court

statements by his codefendants that were offered against

him at trial. He has not argued that any such statements

fail to satisfy the third condition for admissibility

under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), requiring

that they were “made during the course of and in

furtherance of the conspiracy.” Underwood, 446 F.3d at

1345-46. And, even if any admitted statement did not

meet this condition, it would still be admissible if it

61
was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and

therefore not hearsay, or if it satisfied one of the

hearsay exceptions enumerated in Federal Rule of Evidence

803.

For the foregoing reasons, the court reiterates its

conclusion that the government proved by a preponderance

of the evidence that Carter willfully joined the

conspiracy outlined in the indictment and involving at

least Holladay, Corkren, Tutt, and Sisk, and its

conclusion that any co-conspirator statements entered

into evidence against Carter were admissible.

IV. NEW TRIAL

The court now turns to Carter’s pending motion for a

new trial. “Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may

vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest

of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Rule

33 states a “broad standard” for granting a new trial,

and the decision whether to grant a new trial is entrusted

to the “sound discretion of the trial court.” United

62
States v. Vicaria, 12 F.3d 195, 198 (11th Cir. 1994)

(quoting United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1252

(11th Cir. 1990)). The court “may weigh the evidence and

consider the credibility of the witnesses.” United

States v. Albury, 782 F.3d 1285, 1295 (11th Cir. 2015)

(quoting United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1335

(11th Cir. 2005)). “If the court concludes that, despite

the abstract sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the

verdict, the evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily

against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice

may have occurred, it may set aside the verdict, grant a

new trial, and submit the issues for determination by

another jury.” Hernandez, 433 F.3d at 1335 (quoting

United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312 (11th Cir.

1985)). However, the Eleventh Circuit has cautioned that

“[t]he court may not reweigh the evidence and set aside

the verdict simply because it feels some other result

would be more reasonable.” Martinez, 763 F.2d at

1312-13; see also United States v. Brown, 934 F.3d 1278,

1298 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining that, where the

63
evidence is sufficient, the grant of a new trial based

on the weight of the evidence may be appropriate in the

“‘rare’ ‘case in which the evidence of guilt ... is thin

and marked by uncertainties and discrepancies’” (quoting

Butcher v. United States, 368 F.3d 1290, 1297 n.4 (11th

Cir. 2004))). So, a court may grant a new trial even

where the evidence for conviction is sufficient, but only

in the rare case where the very narrow constraints

outlined above are satisfied. Applying these

constraints, the court concludes that this in not that

case.

The court understands Carter’s motion for a new trial

to raise two primary arguments, both based on the weight

of the evidence. First, Carter argues that the

codefendants who testified against him, Sisk and Corkren,

could not reasonably be credited. See Def.’s Mot. for

New Trial (Doc. 309) at 14-15 (describing Sisk’s

testimony as “not believable by any standard” and arguing

that, “It is hard to imagine a witness being subjected

to more serious impeachment ... than Mr. Corkren”); id.

64
at 19 (“In order to deny this motion, ... the Court would

have to ignore the significant credibility problems with

the only two witnesses who link Dr. Carter to the

conspiracy.”). Second, he argues that the evidence at

trial is at least as consistent with the innocent

interpretation that Carter was an “unwitting pawn” who

lacked “the specific intent to defraud” as with the

guilty interpretation that he willfully joined and

participated in the criminal conspiracy. Id. at 18; see

also id. at 19 (“[T]here is no evidence that Dr. Carter

knowingly, willfully and with the specific intent to

defraud joined this conspiracy in order to gain

financially for himself or so that Athens City Schools

would have more money for capital projects, as charged

in the Indictment.”). Neither of these arguments,

considered separately or together, warrants a new trial

under the new-trial standard articulated above.

65
 A. Credibility of Codefendants

Carter highlights his impeachment of Sisk and Corkren

at trial and argues that their “significant credibility

problems,” combined with their importance to the

government’s case, warrant a new trial. Def.’s Mot. for

New Trial (Doc. 309) at 19. As an overarching matter,

Carter asserts that Corkren and Sisk had incentives to

lie based on their plea agreements and the government’s

discretion to recommend downward departures for

substantial assistance in their sentencing hearings. In

itself, this fact, which is present in many cases

involving codefendant testimony, does not establish that

a new trial is appropriate. It does, however,

contextualize the court’s assessment of the credibility

of these witnesses. Even viewing the testimony through

this lens, the court discerns no basis for a new trial.

1. Impeachment of Sisk

With respect to Sisk’s testimony, Carter identifies

two purported inconsistencies.

66
 First, Carter argues that defense counsel “had to

drag ... out of” Sisk an admission that a transfer of

funds from Ed-Op to a charity of Sisk’s choice and,

ultimately, to Sisk personally was not “legitimate.”

Def.’s Mot. for New Trial (Doc. 309) at 14. Sisk

testified that, after obtaining the approval of the

Limestone County School District’s board of education for

a contract to pay Ed-Op $ 45 for each student that Ed-Op

recruited into the district’s virtual school program, he

and Corkren, without approval, modified the contract to

pay Ed-Op $ 55 per student instead. See Sisk Mar. 3,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 165-70. Sisk admitted that Corkren

later gave him a check for $ 15,000--made out to Sisk’s

chosen charity--which Sisk forwarded to the charity’s

leadership. See id. at 170-74. Roughly two weeks later,

$ 13,000 of this money was wired into Sisk’s personal

account, and he ultimately spent it for his “personal

benefit.” Id. at 174-75.

Notwithstanding this testimony, Sisk insisted that

he initially intended that the funds be used for charity.

67
As he put it on direct examination, “My intent, of course,

was to be able to start a high adventure youth program

in the north of the state. That was the intent. That’s

not what happened.” Id. at 175. He gave substantially

similar testimony on cross-examination, adding that this

was what he told a representative of the charity in order

to have the $ 13,000 wired to his personal account. See

Sisk Mar. 4, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 9-10, 14, 19.

Additionally, Carter argues that Sisk testified

incorrectly about a purported meeting of Holladay,

Corkren, Sisk, and Carter. On direct examination, Sisk

testified that the four of them met in the Regions Bank

building prior to the 2016-2017 school year--in December

2015, he thought--to discuss a “statewide recruitment

plan” to “involv[e] more students in virtual learning.”

Sisk Mar. 3, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 162-64. On

cross-examination, however, defense counsel asked

whether Sisk was aware that the Athens district had not

leased office space in the Regions Bank building until

2016. See id. at 217-18. Carter’s motion for a new

68
trial does not identify affirmative support for this

challenge to Sisk’s recollection, but one Athens district

official testified that she could not recall whether the

Regions Bank lease “started before this [2016-2017]

school year or whether it happened a little bit into the

school year.” Sallee Feb. 25, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr.

123-24.

Neither of Carter’s challenges seriously undermines

the credibility of Sisk’s testimony or the ability of the

jury reasonably to draw inferences from it. With respect

to Sisk’s receipt of money from the conspiracy, his

testimony was generally consistent regarding his actual

conduct. Sisk consistently testified both that he

initially collaborated with Corkren to increase the

Limestone school district’s payments to Ed-Op without

approval and that he ultimately appropriated most of

these funds for himself. Even if, as Carter contends,

Sisk’s testimony overstates the extent to which Sisk ever

intended to use the funds for charitable purposes, it

does not considerably affect the court’s assessment of

69
Sisk’s credibility regarding the conspiracy and its

specific actions.

Turning to the meeting that Carter asserts could not

have occurred when and where Sisk described, the evidence

regarding this meeting had minimal inculpatory value.

Contrary to Carter’s representation, the meeting at issue

was not Sisk’s “initial meeting” regarding the

conspiracy. Def.’s Mot. for New Trial (Doc. 309) at 14.

Rather, Sisk testified that the initial meeting regarding

a plan to recruit virtual students for the Limestone

school district occurred in his office and involved

himself, Holladay, Corkren, and another Limestone

district administrator; it did not include Carter.5 See

Sisk Mar. 3, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 155, 158-59, 215-16.

By the time of the meeting purportedly involving Carter,

5. At the start of cross-examination, defense counsel

confirmed that Sisk had testified to two separate
meetings, the first of which involved only Sisk,
Holladay, and Corkren and the second of which also
included Carter and purportedly took place at the Regions
Bank building around December 2015. See Sisk Mar. 3,
2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 215.
70
Sisk had already decided to partner with the Athens

district and Ed-Op. See id. at 163. As to the content

of the meeting, Sisk testified that the purpose was

mostly “breaking the ice” and discussion of a plan to

“involv[e] more students in virtual learning.” Id. at

163-64. To the extent Sisk discussed more specific

information about the forms to be used in this plan, he

clarified that he did not see the forms until “subsequent

meetings.” Id. at 164. Ultimately, the potential

inconsistency in Sisk’s testimony does not carry the

weight that Carter asserts. If the court accepts as true

that the meeting involving Carter could not have occurred

at the time and place that Sisk identified, Sisk’s

testimony appears to reflect a mistaken recollection

about when or where he first met Carter. Given Sisk’s

minimal testimony about the substance of this meeting,

the court does not find that the inconsistency

meaningfully supports Carter’s argument that Sisk

“attempt[ed] to impute knowledge of the scheme to Dr.

71
Carter and to ingratiate himself with the Government.”

Def.’s Mot. for New Trial (Doc. 309) at 14.

More generally, the court finds that documentary

evidence corroborates much of Sisk’s testimony, including

testimony that implicated Carter in the Limestone

district’s enrollment of private school students. One

series of emails, for example, reflected that Carter and

Corkren collaborated to edit the report cards received

from Monroe Academy, the private school that was paired

with the Limestone district. First, Corkren sent the

unedited report cards to Carter’s private email address.

See Gov’t Ex. 542A; Gov’t Ex. 542B. Carter responded

with two different versions of the edited report cards,

both of which omitted the private school’s name and added

Ed-Op’s logo and information. See Gov’t Ex. 536A; Gov’t

Ex. 536B; Gov’t Ex. 537A; Gov’t Ex. 537B. At one point

during a further exchange, Carter remarked that Corkren

had sent him “the original with Monroe on it.” Gov’t Ex.

544. Finally, Corkren sent the edited report cards to

Carter’s official email address under the subject “LCS

72
report cards,” with instructions to “take a quick look

at these and send them along.” Gov’t Ex. 576A; Gov’t Ex.

576B. (Of course, LCS stood for Limestone County

Schools.) In another instance, Carter emailed Corkren to

celebrate the finalization of a standardized testing

schedule for the Monroe Academy students that had been

enrolled as virtual students in the Limestone district.

See Gov’t Ex. 604A; Gov’t Ex. 604B. As a result of this

documentary evidence, any concerns regarding Sisk’s

credibility have minimal impact on the weight of evidence

supporting Carter’s guilt.

2. Impeachment of Corkren

Carter also assigns numerous inconsistencies or

defects to Corkren’s testimony. Unlike Sisk, Corkren was

a central witness in the government’s case against

Carter, testifying extensively to Carter’s knowledge

about and participation in the conspiracy. Nonetheless,

Carter’s attacks on Corkren’s credibility do not justify

a new trial.

73
 As an initial matter, Carter highlights the fact that

Corkren “practiced questions and answers” in a “mock

trial” with the government. Corkren Mar. 11, 2022, R.D.

Trial Tr. 112. Corkren stated that the government

attorneys wanted to “determine my demeanor” and “see how

I reacted” and that he got a “heads up” about the sorts

of questions he would be asked. Id. at 113-14. When

asked whether anyone gave him advice, Corkren replied

that his attorney advised him to “remain calm” during

cross-examination. Id. at 114-15. Apart from his

attorney’s advice to remain calm, further

cross-examination about Corkren’s meetings with the

government and government agents did not establish that

anyone told Corkren what to say or how to say it.

“An attorney enjoys extensive leeway in preparing a

witness to testify truthfully, but the attorney crosses

a line when she influences the witness to alter testimony

in a false or misleading way.” Ibarra v. Baker, 338 F.

App’x 457, 465 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). The

Eleventh Circuit has described impermissible “coaching”

74
as “directing a witness’s testimony in such a way as to

have it conform with, conflict with, or supplement the

testimony of other witnesses.” Crutchfield v.

Wainwright, 803 F.2d 1103, 1110 (11th Cir. 1986) (en

banc) (plurality opinion), abrogated on other grounds by

United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 1217-18 (11th

Cir. 2015); see also Crutchfield, 803 F.2d at 1114 n.10

(Tjoflat, J., specially concurring) (defining “coaching”

to include “improper attempts to influence or shape the

testimony of the witness”). For example, in United

States v. Adams, 785 F.2d 917 (11th Cir. 1986), a

prosecutor informed a witness that he would seek funds

for the witness’s immediate relocation into witness

protection. During an ex parte conference, the

prosecutor then told the witness, “You understand, now,

if they ask you have you been paid anything by the

Government, I haven’t paid you; I’m not paying you to

testify. I’m helping you out, because you think you’re

in fear of your life. If they ask that question, then

that’s another issue, but I don’t want it perceived that

75
I’m paying you.” Id. at 919. The Eleventh Circuit held

that the prosecutor’s instruction amounted to “an attempt

by the prosecutor to coach the witness on how to answer

questions about inducements for his testimony” that

“raise[d] an appearance of impropriety.” Id. at 920-21;

but see id. at 921 (concluding that there was no prejudice

and thus no reversible error).

In contrast to coaching, witness preparation to at

least some degree is widely, if not uniformly, accepted.

The Third Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers states

the general rule that, “A lawyer may interview a witness

for the purpose of preparing the witness to testify.”

Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 116(1)

(Am. Law Inst. 2000). The Restatement elaborates that

permissible preparation may include, among other steps,

“discussing the role of the witness and effective

courtroom demeanor,” “discussing the witness’s

recollection and probable testimony,” “reviewing

documents or other physical evidence that may be

introduced,” and “discussing probable lines of hostile

76
cross-examination that the witness should be prepared to

meet.” Id. cmt. b.

Defense counsel has not presented any evidence that

the government’s preparation of Corkren for trial crossed

the line into impermissible coaching. Despite repeated

questioning about his “practice” answering questions,

Corkren’s testimony does not reflect that he received any

instructions to alter the substance of his testimony. To

the contrary, the only record evidence that Corkren

received any advice concerning his testimony is his

remark that his attorney told him to remain calm, advice

that is quintessentially related to demeanor. The

evidence of Corkren’s trial preparation does not detract

from his credibility.

With respect to Corkren’s testimony about the

conspiracy, Carter contends that a meeting that Corkren

discussed could not have happened as he described.

Corkren testified that toward the end of the

conspiracy--prior to the drafting of Ed-Op’s

termination-of-services agreement in May 2018--he,

77
Holladay, Holladay’s wife, Carter, and Tutt met at a

Cracker Barrel in Gardendale to discuss the “drawing

down” of the conspiracy in light of the investigation by

the State Department of Education. Corkren Mar. 11,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 97-98. Then, on cross-examination,

defense counsel asked Corkren whether he told government

agents about a meeting at the Gardendale Cracker Barrel

on December 2, 2016, at which Holladay, Holladay’s wife,

Carter, and Corkren met to discuss a plan to include Tutt

in the conspiracy. See id. at 197-98. Corkren responded,

“It was then or one other time in Decatur,” and

reiterated, “One of those times. Either that one or that

other time.” Id. When defense counsel asked, “And that

was December 2nd, 2016, which makes sense timing[ ]wise

with Webb Tutt’s involvement,” Corkren replied, “Agreed.”

Id. at 198. Shortly afterward, however, Corkren stated

that he could not remember the meeting. See id. Later

during the trial, defense counsel offered cellphone

evidence indicating that Carter was in Atlanta, Georgia,

on December 2, 2016.

78
 Based on this exchange, Carter asserts that Corkren’s

testimony was contradicted by documentary evidence.

However, this is far from clear. Carter does not identify

any evidence at odds with Corkren’s account of the 2018

meeting on direct examination. And with respect to the

meeting that defense counsel raised on cross-examination,

Corkren thrice indicated uncertainty about the meeting,

including two comments explicitly caveating that the

meeting could have occurred at another time. Amid this

testimony, Corkren’s acquiescence that the meeting

occurred on the date identified by defense counsel (or,

conceivably, that the date identified by defense counsel

“ma[de] sense timing[ ]wise with Webb Tutt’s

involvement,” id.) does little to detract from Corkren’s

credibility with respect to other testimony about which

he expressed no such uncertainty. To the extent Carter

argues instead that Corkren gave a statement about this

meeting prior to trial that was inconsistent with the

evidence, Carter has not established the content of this

statement in sufficient detail for the court to identify

79
whether or to what extent it adversely impacts the

credibility of Corkren’s in-court testimony.

Next, Carter argues that Corkren’s testimony that he

gave $ 1,000 in cash to Carter each month is

uncorroborated by the testimony of the forensic

accountant. This is no inconsistency, given the forensic

accountant’s testimony that cash payments are not

traceable in the same way that checks are. See Gill Mar.

15, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 75. Moreover, contrary to

Carter’s representation, the temporal proximity between

numerous cash withdrawals by Corkren and subsequent cash

deposits by Carter in similar amounts is at least

generally consistent with the payments that Corkren

described. See generally id. at 84-104.

Lastly, Carter argues that Corkren’s testimony

implicating Carter in the conspiracy was inconsistent

with a prior statement Corkren gave to government agents,

in which he listed Holladay, Tutt, and Sisk in response

to the question, “[W]ho was dirty?” Corkren Mar. 11,

2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 164. Undoubtedly, Carter could, and

80
did, argue that this omission supports an inference that

Corkren subsequently changed his story to implicate

Carter and thereby curry favor with the government. But,

against the weight of the evidence corroborating

Corkren’s account of Carter’s involvement in the

conspiracy, the court finds that this piece of evidence

fails to move the needle.

As with Sisk, documentary evidence and Carter’s own

statements corroborated key portions of Corkren’s

testimony. Emails from Carter to Corkren corroborated

that Carter instructed Corkren to change--that is,

falsify--addresses for the out-of-state private school

students being enrolled in the Athens district. Other

emails reflected that Carter and Corkren worked together

to remove private school information from students’

report cards. And, during the investigation by the State

Department of Education, emails from Carter’s private

address listing students and their private schools

paralleled emails from Carter’s official school address

asking Corkren to share grade information supposedly

81
confirming that those same students were full-time

students in the Athens district.

In light of the corroborating evidence, the totality

of Carter’s arguments regarding the testimony of Sisk and

Corkren does not lead the court to conclude that a new

trial is warranted. In addition to the more specific

observations above, the court is mindful that all of the

impeachments of Sisk and Corkren discussed in Carter’s

motion were raised before the jury, often at great

length. Faced with this information, the jury still

found Carter guilty of numerous counts. Carter’s attacks

on the credibility of Sisk and Corkren do not

“preponderate[]” so “heavily” against the jury’s verdict

as to justify “overturn[ing] the credibility choice made

by the jury.” Martinez, 763 F.2d at 1312, 1314.

B. Evidence of Intent

Additionally, Carter argues that the evidence fails

to establish that he “knowingly, willfully[,] and with

the specific intent to defraud” joined the conspiracy

82
“for the purposes charged in the Indictment.” Def.’s

Mot. for New Trial (Doc. 309) at 17-18. For many of the

same reasons stated with respect to the admissibility of

co-conspirators’ statements, see supra Section III.B, the

court disagrees. The evidence proves not merely by a

preponderance of the evidence but indeed beyond a

reasonable doubt that Carter joined the conspiracy

willfully and with fraudulent intent.

Carter suggests that the evidence is entirely

consistent with the possibility that Carter took the

steps he took under the belief that he was “simply

gathering legitimate data [from Corkren] and forwarding

it on.” Id. at 18. But the evidence that Carter knew

that the Athens City School District’s enrollment of

private school students was fraudulent is too great. The

extensive steps that Carter took to conceal the fact that

the Ed-Op students were private school students is strong

evidence of his fraudulent intent. See McNair, 605 F.3d

at 1197. Within the Athens district, Carter instructed

officials to refer to the private school students by

83
numbered “EO” codes. In communications with Corkren,

Carter routinely swapped between his private email

address, when referring to private school information,

and his school email address, after such information had

been scrubbed. Corkren’s testimony establishes in no

uncertain terms that Carter knew that the information

that he was sharing with Athens district officials and

presenting to the State Department of Education had been

fabricated. Among the conversations to which Corkren

testified, he informed Carter that he had created fake

in-state addresses for out-of-state students and later

that he needed to fabricate completed Odysseyware

records. Following each of these conversations, Carter

sent the fake addresses to Athens district officials for

use in enrollment and sent a subset of the fabricated

Odysseyware records to Holladay and the State Department

of Education. All the while, he received cash payments

from Corkren and advanced his career within the Athens

district on the recommendations of Holladay.

84
 Even if this were not evidence enough that Carter

understood the falsehood of his representations--though

it is--by April 2017, Carter shared a template enrollment

form with Holladay to be passed on to the State Department

of Education, which affirmed that full-time Renaissance

School students could not simultaneously be enrolled in

“another public or non-public K-12 school” and must have

“first withdraw[n] from that other school” prior to

enrollment. Gov’t Ex. 707B at 2. Yet despite this

explicit recognition and representation to the department

about the Athens district’s future conduct, Carter

continued to work with Corkren to facilitate the

enrollment of full-time private school students and to

conceal existing enrollments from the department.

The evidence of Carter’s willful participation in

the conspiracy and intent to defraud was not “depend[ent]

upon inferences upon inferences drawn from uncorroborated

testimony.” Martinez, 763 F.2d at 1313 (citation

omitted). Neither was it “marked by uncertainties and

discrepancies” that undermine confidence in the jury’s

85
verdict. Id. To the contrary, proof of Carter’s unlawful

intent was supported by varied and credible sources,

including documentary evidence and records of Carter’s

own communications.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that

Carter participated in a conspiracy with his

codefendants, and it concludes that any co-conspirator

statements were properly admitted against him at trial.

Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, the court

properly denied Carter’s motion for a new trial.6

6. While not playing a role in the court’s findings

and conclusions as to the issues resolved above, the
court feels obligated to make the following observation,
from the evidence presented in open court, due to the
fact that this case involves the use of public funds.
Over the course of the conspiracy, money was paid from
Alabama’s Education Trust Fund, through the Athens
district and Ed-Op, to private schools and their
employees. Most of the private schools to enter the
86
agreements in this case were scattered throughout or near
Alabama’s Black Belt region--“a south-central region of
the State named for its black soil,” where “[m]any
[B]lack Alabamans reside ... due to the region’s history
of agriculture and slavery.” Ala. Legis. Black Caucus
v. Alabama, 231 F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1036 (M.D. Ala. 2017)
(Pryor, J.). The court heard testimony that described
education in the Black Belt region as resembling “1965,”
with Black students going to public schools and white
students going to private schools or being homeschooled.
Thurman Mar. 2, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 234-35. Public
schools in the Black Belt were described as some of the
“poorest and lowest performing schools” in Alabama. See
Sisk Mar. 3, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 195. The shortcomings
of these schools were attributed in part to a lack of
resources, including money. See id. at 195-97.

The co-conspirators’ successful inflation of the

average daily membership count of the Athens City School
District and the Limestone County School District
resulted in public schools within the Black Belt, and
throughout the State, receiving less than their fair
share of funding from the State’s Education Trust Fund.
Under the Education Trust Fund’s Foundation Program, when
one school district overstates its growth, all other
school districts are harmed. See Craig Mar. 7, 2022,
R.D. Trial Tr. 189. Here, both the Limestone County
School District and the Athens City School District
received more than their fair share of Foundation Program
funding at the expense of even the most cash-strapped
school district. However, the Education Trust Fund’s
money did not simply remain misappropriated within the
public school districts that make up the Alabama state
education system.

In connection with the agreements to acquire student

information from the private schools, the co-conspirators
87
paid over $ 600,000 of the money the Athens district
received from the Education Trust Fund to the
participating private schools and their employees and
administrators. As a result, the private schools
obtained funds from the State’s Education Trust Fund that
they were not lawfully entitled to receive. The court
is especially concerned because it appears these private
schools serve almost exclusively white students. While
the court does not have before it the racial demographics
of each private school, it does have the relevant data
for the private school students that the Athens City
School District enrolled in the Renaissance School as
part of this scheme. This information was submitted by
the Athens district to the State Department of Education.
See Stringham Mar. 4, 2022, R.D. Trial Tr. 110. In both
the fall of 2016 and the fall of 2017, over 98 % of the
Ed-Op affiliated students that the Athens school district
used to inflate its average daily membership were
identified as white. See Stringham Mar. 4, 2022, R.D.
Trial Tr. 137-39, 148; Gov’t Ex. 1873 (the Athens City
School District’s submission to the State Department of
Education). These data suggest that nearly all of the
private school students utilized by the co-conspirators
to inflate the average daily membership of the Athens
City School District were white. They also suggest that
the participating private schools collectively serve a
similar proportion of white students. In light of these
demographic data and the testimony of school
administrators regarding the racialized divide between
public and private education in at least one region of
Alabama, the court is troubled by the lingering specter
that public funds may have been used to foster or support
racial segregation, albeit fraudulently, within
Alabama’s system of education.
88
DONE, this the 14th day of July, 2022.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

89