Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02068/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02068-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angelo Porrello
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________________________________________________________

Nos. 02-1308WM, 02-1701WM, 02-1704WM, 02-1709WM, 02-1710WM,

02-1722WM, 02-1723WM, 02-2068WM, 02-3582WM

___________________________________________________________

______________ *

*

No. 02-1308WM *

______________ *

*

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Michael Hatcher, *

*

Appellant. * On Appeal from the United

* States District Court

__________________________ * for the Western District

* of Missouri.

Nos. 02-1701WM, 02-1704WM, *

 02-1723WM *

__________________________ *

*

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Joseph Anthony Porrello, *

*

Appellant. *

*

Appellate Case: 02-2068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2005 Entry ID: 1948630
1

The Honorable Richard S. Arnold died on September 23, 2004. This opinion

is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E.

-2-

__________________________

*

Nos. 02-1709WM, 02-1710WM, *

 02-1722WM, 02-2068WM, *

 02-3582WM *

__________________________ *

* On Appeal from the United

United States of America, * States District Court 

* for the Western District

Appellee, * of Missouri.

v. *

*

Angelo Porrello, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 13, 2003

 Filed: September 7, 2005

___________

Before BOWMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD1

, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In a previous opinion in this case, United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 (8th

Cir. 2003), we held the bulk of appellants' arguments lacked merit, but remanded so

the district court could determine whether tape-recorded conversations between

various cooperating witnesses and their attorneys should have been turned over to the

Appellate Case: 02-2068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2005 Entry ID: 1948630
-3-

defense. We retained jurisdiction to consider the result of the district court's inquiry,

and it has now certified to us it has reached a conclusion. On remand, the district

court concluded appellants were not prejudiced by the non-disclosures. We conclude

the district court properly resolved this claim and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

The order and judgment of the district court are affirmed in all respects. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-2068 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/07/2005 Entry ID: 1948630