Michael Smith was convicted of federal offenses arising from the beating and death of an inmate. He argued that statements he made during an internal investigation were compelled under Garrity and improperly reached federal investigators, violating the Fifth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court examined the investigative record and held that the statements at issue were not shown to have been compelled in the relevant sense, and the record supported the finding that federal agents did not review protected statements before interviewing Smith. The court declined to rely on an unsupported subsidiary finding about a supposed filter within the United States Attorney’s Office. Because Smith did not establish a Garrity violation and his remaining appellate arguments were unpersuasive, the court left the judgment intact. The published decision distinguishes a public employee’s compelled administrative statements from later federal criminal use and emphasizes the proof needed to establish taint.