UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4220

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ILDEFONSO MADRID FLORES, a/k/a Alfonso,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00353-MOC-DCK-1)

Argued: March 19, 2014 Decided: April 7, 2014

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Andrew Brady Banzhoff, DEVEREUX & BANZHOFF, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. April Anita Christine, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

ON BRIEF: Mythili Raman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Denis J. McInerney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal 

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; 

Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial, Ildefonso Madrid Flores was convicted 

of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Flores contends 

that the government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 

(1963), by withholding important information about the 

prosecution’s key witness. Flores appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for a mistrial and his motion for a new 

trial on this ground. Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

During Flores’s trial for his drug offense, the government 

planned to call David Kennedy, one of Flores’s co-conspirators, 

as a key witness. Kennedy had been attending court-mandated 

counseling sessions at New Beginnings Counseling Center. At the 

request of Flores’s attorney, the court issued a subpoena to New 

Beginnings requiring it to turn Kennedy’s mental health records 

over to the court.

On May 7, 2012, the eve of Flores’s trial, a representative 

from New Beginnings came to the courthouse to deliver Kennedy’s 

subpoenaed files. Rather than turning the files over to the 

Clerk of Court, however, the representative mistakenly handed 

them to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (“AUSA”) who had no 

involvement in Flores’s case. That AUSA--who knew nothing about 
3

the subpoena’s instruction to turn the file over to the court--

informed the prosecutor in Flores’s case that documents relating 

to the case had been delivered. The prosecutor working on 

Flores’s case, however, did not actually see the file that New 

Beginnings had delivered until the morning after the trial.

At the pretrial conference on the morning of May 8, 2012, 

Flores’s attorney asked the court to conduct an in camera review 

of the records subpoenaed from New Beginnings. The judge 

informed Flores’s attorney that the court had not received the 

records. At this time, the prosecutor noted that New Beginnings 

had delivered a package to another AUSA the night before, but 

that he had not seen the package. This is when the parties and 

the court first learned of the improper delivery of Kennedy’s 

New Beginnings records. The prosecutor tried to remedy the 

situation by offering the court and Flores’s lawyer what he was 

physically carrying at the time--a copy of Kennedy’s New 

Beginnings file that he had obtained from Kennedy’s lawyer. 

Unbeknownst to the prosecutor, Flores’s attorney, or the judge, 

these records were incomplete and not identical to those that

New Beginnings had improperly delivered the previous afternoon.

The trial began immediately after this conference. On the 

trial’s second day, Kennedy took the stand to testify. During

his cross-examination, Flores’s attorney impeached him at length 
4

with his extensive history of heavy drug use.1 Kennedy also 

testified that he was undergoing drug counseling and treatment 

for anxiety and depression. Because the New Beginnings records 

used by both parties were incomplete, however, Flores’s attorney 

was unaware of additional information that could have affected

Kennedy’s credibility, including the full extent of his drug 

use, his auditory hallucinations, and that he had been 

hospitalized for his drug use and mental illness.

The trial concluded on its second day, May 9, 2012, and the 

jury began its deliberations. On May 10, 2012, as the jury 

continued its deliberations, the judge held the post-trial 

conference. At this time, the prosecutor informed the court and 

Flores’s attorney that the New Beginnings file he had offered at 

the pretrial conference was incomplete. He then turned over 

Kennedy’s complete file, which New Beginnings had misdelivered. 

The judge and Flores’s attorney reviewed it.

Later in the post-trial conference, the parties submitted 

several motions in response to the revelation that the trial had 

proceeded without Kennedy’s full mental health records. After 

 1 For example, during his cross-examination, Kennedy called 

himself a “[v]ery heavy” drug user and admitted that he had been 

fired from his previous job for drug use. J.A. 282. Kennedy 

went on to say that he used cocaine “[a]ll day” on a daily basis 

during the time that he interacted with Flores. J.A. 283–84. 

Kennedy also admitted that his drug use “[c]ertainly” resulted 

in memory loss. J.A. 291.
5

reviewing the contents of the New Beginnings records, Flores’s

attorney orally moved for a mistrial with prejudice and 

requested a hearing to reveal possible governmental misconduct. 

Flores’s attorney, in the alternative, moved for a new trial on 

the ground of newly discovered evidence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 

33(b)(1). The government orally moved for a mistrial without 

prejudice, which Flores’s attorney opposed.

The district court ultimately rejected each motion and 

allowed the jury to reach a verdict, as “this evidence came 

in . . . after the jury was out.” J.A. 528. The district court 

also rejected any notion that the government’s nondisclosure was 

anything other than inadvertent. It noted that the mistake was 

“not the government’s fault” because “[t]he person that screwed 

up is the person that didn’t follow [the subpoena’s directions]

over there at the New Beginnings.” J.A. 506, 508.

The jury returned a guilty verdict. Flores’s attorney 

filed a written motion for a mistrial and a new trial, again 

requesting a hearing to determine if the prosecutor 

intentionally withheld information from the defense. After full 

briefing by both sides, the district court rejected Flores’s 

motions. Flores appeals.
6

II.

We review each of the district court’s denials for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 203 (4th 

Cir. 2012); United States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2008).2

Brady requires that the government disclose material 

evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal proceeding. 

United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129, 142 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(citing Brady, 373 U.S. at 87). A Brady violation occurs when 

evidence favorable to the accused has been suppressed by the 

state, and the defendant is prejudiced. Strickler v. Greene, 

527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999). A Brady violation can occur 

“irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the 

prosecution.” Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 

(1972). However, “a defendant is not entitled to the benefit of 

the Brady doctrine” when the exculpatory information “is not 

only available to the defendant but also lies in a source where 

a reasonable defendant would have looked.” United States v. 

Jeffers, 570 F.3d 557, 573 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting United 

 2 Flores also appeals his sentence, claiming that he has a 

constitutional right for a jury to determine drug weights used 

in sentencing. Flores acknowledges that his position is not the 

law in this circuit. We recognize that he seeks to preserve 

this issue for a possible future challenge.
7

States v. Wilson, 901 F.2d 378, 381 (4th Cir. 1990)). That is 

indisputably the case here.

Flores cannot benefit from Brady because Kennedy’s mental 

health records fall squarely within the exception set forth 

above. Flores’s attorney had equal access to the information

sought: the very subpoena obtained by Flores’s attorney ensured 

that Kennedy’s complete New Beginnings records were available to 

Flores. Therefore, we cannot say that the district court abused 

its discretion in denying Flores’s motions for a mistrial and 

for a new trial.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order is

AFFIRMED.