Case ID: f-appx_2/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "per CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Luis C. BUENO-ESPINOZA, Appellant.
    No. 99-2339.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 8, 2001.
    Filed: March 9, 2001.
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
   per CURIAM

In this direct criminal appeal, Luis C. Bueno-Espinoza contends the govemment violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing timely to disclose his codefendant’s plea agreement, and 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) by entering into the plea agreement with the same codefendant in exchange for his testimony. Like the district court, we reject both arguments. Bueno-Espinoza has not shown how earlier disclosure of the plea agreement would have materially affected the outcome of his case, see United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), and the government does not violate § 201(c)(2) by treating codefendants with leniency in exchange for their testimony, see United States v. Albanese, 195 F.3d 389, 394 (8th Cir.1999) (Eighth Circuit has “long history” of allowing government to compensate witnesses for their participation in criminal investigations).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s discretionary decision not to grant Bueno-Espinoza a downward departure. See United States v. Saelee, 123 F.3d 1024, 1025 (8th Cir.1997) (discretionary decision not to depart from Guidelines is unreviewable absent unconstitutional motive or legally erroneous determination that court lacked authority to consider mitigating factor).

We affirm the district court.