[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10734 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JO ANN MACRINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-00216-SCJ-LTW-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-10734 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 07/30/2024 Page: 2 of 19

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10734

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal from a trial for public corruption requires us to decide whether the district court abused its discretion in two evi- dentiary rulings and in its refusal to give a proposed jury instruc- tion. Jo Ann Macrina, the former Commissioner of the Department of Watershed Management for the City of Atlanta, was charged with taking bribes from a contractor. At trial, the district court ad- mitted portions of a recorded conversation between Macrina and federal agents over Macrina’s objection under Federal Rule of Evi- dence 106. The district court also admitted the Code of Ethics for city employees over Macrina’s objection that it was irrelevant and substantially more prejudicial than probative. Later, the district court declined to give Macrina’s proposed jury instruction that any payments received after an official act were a gratuity and not a bribe. Because none of these rulings were an abuse of discretion, we affirm Macrina’s convictions. I. BACKGROUND Jo Ann Macrina worked as the Commissioner of the City of Atlanta’s Department of Watershed Management. She evaluated proposals for architectural and engineering services for the Depart- ment. In 2013, the Department solicited proposals for a new archi- tecture and engineering contract. Eleven contractors submitted proposals, including a company owned by Lohrasb “Jeff” Jafari. USCA11 Case: 23-10734 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 07/30/2024 Page: 3 of 19

23-10734 Opinion of the Court 3

After the initial evaluation process in November 2014, Jafari’s com- pany was not selected for the contract. Macrina later made several decisions that revived Jafari’s bid. She requested a reevaluation of the proposals, replaced two of the evaluation committee members, requested interviews as part of the evaluation process, and actively participated in scoring the pro- posals during the reevaluation. She also scored Jafari’s company higher than every other evaluator. After the reevaluation, Jafari’s company was selected for the contract. In May 2016, a few weeks after the proposal evaluation process concluded, Macrina was fired, and she went to work for Jafari’s company. Shortly after she was fired, Macrina contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “provide information of possible cor- ruption” in Atlanta. During their conversations with Macrina, the agents became suspicious of her relationship with Jafari while she was employed by the Departmen