NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MILO KOSHAWN PERKINS, AKA Lo, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-50118 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00360-JHN-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Subm itted October 7, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Milo Perkins appeals his jury conviction and sentence for distribution of cocaine base in the form of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii). Perkins claim s he was denied his right to a fair trial and to present a defense when the district court refused to grant a num ber of his pre-trial discovery 

# FILED
OCT 21 2013 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.requests and excluded the full audio and video recording, which included m ore

than the drug transaction between Perkins and a confidential inform ant (CI). Perkins also requests a new sentencing hearing, arguing that the district court incorrectly found that the governm ent provided sufficient notice to enhance his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm the conviction and sentence. 1 Perkins failed to m a ke a prim a facie showing of m ateriality, United States v. Mandel , 914 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 1990), and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his discovery requests, United States v. Shryock , 342 F.3d 948, 983 (9th Cir. 2003). The agent notes requested by Perkins were reviewed in camera , and the district court properly denied Perkins’s request when it found no inconsistencies between those notes and the final report. We also
exam ined this evidence and found none. The district court likewise reviewed the redacted portions of the lab reports, and properly determ ined that the only exculpatory and relevant evidence—the fact that Perkins’s fingerprints were not found—had already been disclosed. The inform ation redacted from the lab reports pertained to cases unrelated to Perkins’s. Finally, Perkins’s request for inform ation

1 As the parties are fam iliar with the facts of the case, we repeat only those facts necessary to explain our decision. 2about the CI was overbroad. The governm ent provided the CI’s nam e, her

redacted rap sheet, and a description of all benefits the CI received from the FBI and LAPD for Perkins’s case and others. The district court properly denied Perkins’s request for a com plete list of all cases on which the CI had wo rked. See United States v. Rowland , 464 F.3d 899, 909 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The defendant’s need for inform a tion must be balanced against the value of ensuring the safety of inform ants.”). The disclosure of the CI’s paid inform ant status and her rap sheet, as well as her availability to be called as a witness by the defense (who chose not to call her), constituted m ore than enough inform a tion for Perkins, particularly when balanced against the governm ent’s need to protect the CI’s identity in other cases in which she was involved. Given these facts, Perkins cannot dem onstrate that the denial of his discovery requests prejudiced his substantial rights. Shryock , 342 F.3d at 983. Perkins was not denied his Sixth Am endm ent right to present a defense by the district court’s exclusion of the full audio and video recording of the drug transaction. Non-pertinent portions were properly excluded as irrelevant and as hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 801. The district court offered Perkins m ultiple opportunities to proffer additional portions of the recording or use the recording to im peach testifying witnesses. He failed to designate what m ore he needed.
3Perkins was not denied the opportunity to present a defense; he sim ply failed to

take advantage of the options available to him
. Cf. U nited States v. Pineda-Doval , 614 F.3d 1019, 1032 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding a Sixth Am endm ent violation where the trial court’s evidentiary ruling “essentially deprived [defendant] of all evidence in his favor”). The 21 U.S.C. § 851 inform ation filed by the governm ent three m onths prior to trial adequately apprised Perkins of the governm ent’s intent to seek a sentencing enhancem e nt. See United States v. Severino , 316 F.3d 939, 943–44 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“If the defendant, reading the inform ation in context, will have no trouble understanding which prior conviction the prosecutor m e a ns to identify, the inform ation then has ‘stat[ed] . . . the previous convictions,’ and the statutory purpose of providing defendant notice has been satisfied.”) (alterations in original); see also United States v. Hamilton , 208 F.3d 1165, 1169 (9th Cir. 2000) (“As long as the inform a tion provides clear notice to a defendant of the prior convictions (and the court gives an opportunity to attack the convictions less than five years old), then the statute has been satisfied.”). Due process was satisfied here. The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED
.

4