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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. AR THUR

LEON HOLLIS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-35074

D.C . Nos. 3:09-c v-00017-HR H 3:04-c r-00140-HR

H M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska H . R usse l Holla

nd, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2015 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : C ANB Y, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Arthur Le on Hollis a

p p e a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his § 2255 m otion to vac ate his c onvic tion. Hollis’ m otion a sse rte d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im s, a

nd he subse que ntly

re que ste d re lie f on a

the ory of prose c utoria l 

# F IL ED MAY22 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).m isc o nduc t. The distric t c ourt c e rtifie d for a ppe a l the following que stion whic h re late s to e vide nc e the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to produc e re g arding there lia bility of one of the gove rnm e nt’ s ke y witne sse s: “ [W ] he the r de fe nda nt pre se rve d a prose c utoria l m isc onduc t c la im and, if he did, whe the r he wa s pre judic e d by

the Gove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to produc e c e rta in e vide nc e pe rta i ning to a c onfide ntia l sourc e .” The distric t c ourt ha d origina l jurisdic tion ove r this c rim ina l a c t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a

n d we a ffirm . Hollis c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in fa iling to addre ss his prose c utoria l m isc onduc t c la im . Hollis did not asse rt a prose c utoria l m isc onduc t c la im in his origina

l or a m e nde d § 2255 m otion, nor did he se e k le ave to file a se c o nd a m e nde d pe tition to add suc h a c la im . De spite the s e fa c ts, thedistric t c ourt a ddre s se d the m e rits of tha t c l a im and c onc lude d tha

t, ha d Hollis a sse rte d suc h a c la im , he would not ha

ve p re va ile d for la c k

of pre j udic e . Assum ing without de c iding tha t Hollis’ prose c utoria l m isc onduc t c l a im wa s prope rly be fore the distric t c ourt, we c onside r whe the r Hollis wa s pre judic e d by the g ove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to produc e c e rta in e vide n c e pe rta ining to a c onfide ntia l sourc e (“ C S” ). R e vie wing de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s de c ision to deny Hollis’ § 22255 m otion, se eUnite d State s v . Aguirre -Ganc e da , 592 F.3d 1043,1045 (9th C ir. 2010), we c onc lude tha

t Hollis wa s not pre

judic e d by

the gove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to produc e Brady

/ Giglio m at e ria ls tha

t provide d a dditional inform ation a bout C S’ s unre lia bility . The distric t c ourt a c c urate ly c h a ra c t e riz e d the e xte nsive tria l te stim ony e sta blishing C S’ s unre lia

bility and the fa c t tha

t the la w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs working with him we re aware of it. A lthough the Se pte m be r 1, 2004, m e m o a b out C S’ s c ontinue d una

uthoriz e d drug de a ling should ha ve be e n , but wa s not, disc lose d , it is c le a

r from the re c ord tha

t de fe nse c ounse l wa s a

ware of–a nd e lic ite d te stim ony

re ga rding–theproble m s de sc ribe d in them e m o. Sim ila rly , the othe r undisc lose d e vide nc e a b o ut whic h Hollis c o m

pla ins would ha

ve done nothing more tha

n re c a pitula t e the a lre a dy

we ll-e sta blishe d fa c t

tha t C S wa s a dishone st drug de a le r who te stifie d a ga inst Hollis in hope s of ge tting a be tte r de a l for him se lf. As a re sult, Hollis c ould not dem onstra te tha t the suppre ssion of e vide nc e c o nta ining a dditional inform ation a bout C S’ s unre lia

bility satisfie s the pre j udic e re quire m e nt for Brady / Giglio c la im s . S

e eUnite d State

s v . K ohring , 637 F.3d 895, 908 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ W e have pre viously he ld tha t whe n de fe nse c ounse l suffic ie ntly im

p e a c h e s a gove rnm e nt witne ss in c ross-e xam ination a nd c losing a rgum e nt, the de fe nda

nt c annot la

te r c la im a Brady / Giglio viola

tion on a c c ount of a d ditiona l undisc lose d e vide n c e supporting the im pe a c hm e nt. In suc h 3c irc um s ta

nc e s , the e vide nc e is c um ulative be c a

use the grounds for im

pe a c hm e nt are ‘ no se c re t’ to the jury .” (c iting Hov e y v . Ay e rs , 458 F.3d 892, 921 (9th C ir. 2006)). B e y ond tha

t, the re is no e vide nc e in the re c ord suffic ie nt to support Hollis’ a sse rtion tha

t the gove rnm e nt’ s suppre ssion of Brady / Giglio m ate ria l rise s to the le ve l of gross prose c utoria l m isc onduc t. W e a lso find no me rit to Hollis’ unsupporte d a sse rtion tha t the Gove rnm e nt withhe ld e vide nc e tha

t C S c onduc t e d a

n una uthoriz e d stop prior to his m e e ting with Hollis. The

re wa s no c le ar e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s findings tha t C S wa s

“ unde r surve illa

nc e during thee ntire tim e ” and did not obta in the drugs “ from any one othe r tha

n the de fe nda

nt.” Inde e d, it a

ppe ars tha

t the inc ide nt to whic h Hollis re fe rs wa s disc lose d prior to trial: there c o rd shows tha t Hollis had am

ple opportunity

to c ross-e xam ine C S a

b out a stop a t the Northwa

y M a ll tha t the offic e rs m ay

not ha ve a uthoriz e d C S to m ak e . W e de c line to a ddre ss Hollis’ unc e rtifie d issue be c a

use he ha s not m a de a substa ntia l showing of the

de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right. 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(2). AFFIRM E D.

4