N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. THERE SA M AR C IANTI, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10435

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00452-PM PC W H-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Philip M . Pro, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd M ORR IS, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED D EC 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe lla

te Prodc e dure 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble B rian M . M o rris, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.The re sa M arc ia nti a ppe a ls he r c onvic tions for ba nk fra ud a nd wire fra

ud, 18 U.S.C . §§ 1343–44, aiding a nd a be tting ba nk fra ud a nd wire fra

u d, 18 U.S.C . § 2, and c onspira c y

to c om m it ba nk fra ud, m a il fra

u d, a n d wire fra

ud, 18 U.S.C . § 1349. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . I The distric t c ourt prope rly re je c te d M arc ia

nti’ s m otion for a

ne w tria l following the

gove rnm e nt’ s post-tria l disc losure of e vide nc e tha t c o uld ha ve be e n use d to im pe a c h a gove rnm e nt witne ss. In a c rim ina l proc e e ding, theprose c ution m ay not suppre ss e v i de nc e favora ble to the a c c use d whe n suc h e vide nc e is m ate ria l to de te rm ining thede fe nda nt’ s guilt or punishm

e nt. Brady

v . Mary l and, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Suc h a

duty e nc om pa sse s im pe a c hm e nt e v ide nc e , Unite d State s v . Bagle y , 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985), a nd a pplie s re ga

rdle s s of whe the r the de fe nse m ake s a re que st for e vide nc e , Unite d State s v . Agurs , 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). To be grante d re lie f unde r Brady , a de fe nda nt m ust de m onstra

te tha t the e v ide nc e in que stion wa s favora

ble to his c a se , the gove rnm e nt willfully or ina d v e rte ntly suppre sse d it, a

nd the suppre s sion pre

judic e d the de fe nda

nt. Milk e v . Ry an , 711 F.3d 998, 1012 (9th C ir. 2013). The gove rnm e nt did not suppre ss e vide nc e re lating to Suz anne M c Alliste r’ s te stim ony re ga rding he r e n ga g i ng in misc onduc t while working for Ja

m ie Ske lton. 2B e fore tria l, the prose c ution sha re d with thede fe nse M c Alliste r’ s ple a a g re e m e nt, in whic h M c Alliste r a dm itte d to ta king a c tions in furtheranc e of the le nding sc he m e on June 16, 2006, a nd July 25, 2006—d

uring whic h tim e she worke d for Ske lton. As M arc i anti ha d suc h e vide nc e ava ila ble to he r be fore tria l a

nd sim ply fa ile d to m ake use of it to im pe a c h M c Alliste r’ s fa lse sta t e m e nt, the re wa s no suppre ssion for Brady p urpose s. The gove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to disc lose e vide nc e re lating to M c A lliste r’ s te na nc y in the hom e of Lloy d Ga rdle y , a stra w buy e r in them o rtga ge sc he m e , did not viola te due proc e ss unde r Brady be c a use M arc ia

nti suffe re d no pre

judic e a s a re sult. As suc h e v ide n c e wa s favora ble to the de fe nse give n its potentia l use to im pe a c h M c Alliste r, s e e Bagle

y , 473 U.S. a

t 676, theprose c ution ha d a n

“ ine sc a p a ble ” duty to disc lose it, re ga

rdle ss of whe the r the gove rnm e nt re a liz e d that M c Alliste r’ s sta

te m e nt on thesta

nd wa s fa lse , se e K

y le s v . W hitle y , 514 U.S. 419, 438–39 (1995). Howe ve r, give n the ove rwhe lm ing e v ide nc e pre se nte d a ga inst M arc ia nti, whic h i nc lude d num e rous witne sse s and voluminous doc um e nts de m onstra

ting fra u d ule nt c onduc t, M arc i anti ha s fa ile d to de m o nstra te “ that ‘ the re is a re a sona ble proba bility ’ tha t the re sult of thetria l would ha v e be e n diffe re nt if the s uppre sse d doc um e nts ha d be e n disc lose d to thede fe nse . ” S tric k le r v . Gre e ne ,

3527 U.S. 263, 289 (1999). B e c a use the tria l produc e d “ a

ve rdic t worthy

of c onfide nc e ,” K

y le s , 514 U.S. a

t 434, the re wa s no B rady viola tion. II The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing M arc i anti’ s m otion to re c onside r the e xc lusion of her propose d e xpe rt witne ss. A distric t c ourt’ s te ntative e xc lusion of e vide nc e through a

n in limine ruling m ay

not be c ha l le nge d on a

ppe a l unle ss the a ggrie ve d pa

rty atte m pte d to offe r the e v ide nc e at tria l. Unite d State s v . W hitte more , 776 F.3d 1074, 1082 (9th C ir. 2015). W he n the distric t

c o urt de nie d M arc ia nti’ s m otion to use

R ona ld B loe c ke r a s a

n e xpe rt witne s s, it did so without pre j udic e , a dvising M arc ia

nti tha t she would ha

ve an opportunity to re n e whe r m otion following the

gove rnm e nt’ s c a se in c hie f; the c ourt e ve n e xpre sse d a willingne ss to pre vie wte stim o ny outsidethe pre se nc e of the jury . M arc ia nti ne ve r took thedistric t c ourt up on its offer. B e c a use M arc ia

nti fa ile d to re ne w he r m otion during tria l, the distric t c ourt’ s orde r m ay not be c ha lle nge d on a

ppe a l. Se e id . AFFIRM E D.

4