Cir. 1995). A defendant’s substantial rights are violated if the defendant is “unduly surprised and lacks an adequate opportunity to prepare a defense,” or “if the mistake substantially influences the jury.” See id. at 998-99. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cervante-Sanchez’s motion for a new trial. It was within the district court’s discretion to find that the Government’s failure to produce the text messages during discovery did not substantially prejudice Cervante-Sanchez. First, the record belies the notion that Cervante-Sanchez was unduly surprised by the text messages at trial. The text messages were Cervante-Sanchez’s own correspondences, “which he should have had some knowledge of.-” See United States v. Rivera, 944 F.2d 1563, 1566 (11th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). And, “[mjore importantly, if
holding that plaintiffs testimony in employment discrimination case about statement made to her by manager was inadmissible hearsay because it included statement made by others who were unidentified holding that a defendant was pot unduly surprised by the delayed disclosure of evidence showing that he made an inculpatory statement holding recording of eyewitnesss inculpatory statement made in custodial interrogation testimonial in nature holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that an inculpatory statement by a declarant was not reliable when he viewed the defendant like an older brother providing a motivation to lie the statement was made only to defense investigators and not to prosecutors the declarant was not under oath had not been read his miranda rights and was not represented by counsel and the declarant ultimately recanted his admission