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. JAM ES M INC OFF, AKA Jim , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-56812

D.C . Nos. 3:11-c v-00039-DM S

3:06-c r-01241-DM S-3
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d and Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 6, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , M . SM ITH, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 1. The gove rnm e nt m e t its disc losure obliga tions unde r Brady

v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The

gove rnm e nt disc lose d

re c ordings, line

she e ts, a nd a wire ta p a ffidavit e vide nc ing M unozand Durkin’ s sc he m e to suborn pe rjury , and the w ire ta p a ffidavit spe c ific a lly

a sse rte d tha

t M unoztold Durkin to “ forc e



# FIL ED
JAN 13 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 3

[C ontre ra s] to ta

k e the bla m e for the drugs.” The wire ta p a ffida vit spe c ific a lly ide n tifie d the dat e and tim e of the c a ll in whic h M unoz and Durkin discusse d the pe rjury sc he m e , a

nd the phone s from

whic h the c a l l wa s m a de . In light of the se disc losure s, the Vitkosky

re port “ c onta ine d

m e re ly c um ulat ive im p e a c hm e nt
e vide nc e ,” Unite d State

s v . Marashi , 913 F.2d 724, 732 (9th C ir. 1990), so the gove rnm e nt’ s fa ilure to turn it over wa s not a Brady viola tion. 2. B e c a use the gove rnm e nt did not viola te Brady , the re is no ba sis for M inc off’ s C onfronta

tion C la use c la im
. Se e Unite d State s v . C o llins , 551 F.3d 914, 925–26 (9th C ir. 2009). 3. W e c onstrue M inc off’ s m otion to re ope n brie fing to a ddre s s ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l a s a

m otion to e xpa

nd the C e rtific a te of Appe a l a bility . W e gran t the m otion be c a

use his c l a im is “ de bata

b le am o ng jurists of re a son.” Doev . W oodford , 508 F.3d 563, 567 (9th C ir. 2007). His c la im none the l e ss fa ils on them e rits. To pre v a il, he m ust show tha

t his
c ounse l’ s fa ilure to im

pe a c h M unozwith e vide nc e of the pe rjury sc he m e (1) wa s unre a s ona

ble an d (2) pre

judic e d him
. Se e Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 698–99 (1984). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s unre a sona ble , M inc off c annot show pre

judic e . The re c orde d c onve rsations be t we e n M inc off and M unoz
— ra the r tha n M unoz ’ s te stim ony

— we re the ke y

e vide nc e at M i nc off’ s tria l.Pa ge 3 of 3

Furthe r, M unozwa s thoroughly im pe a c he d ba se d on his involve m e nt in othe r c rim e s, inc luding a c onspira c y to c om m it m urde r. And the prose c utor stre sse d in
c losing tha

t the jury should view M unoz ’ s te stim ony “ with gre a t sc rutiny .” On the s e fa c t s, the re is no re a s ona ble proba bility tha t the re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt e ve n if M unozha d be e n furthe r im

pe a c he d. Se e Sully

v . Ay e rs , 725 F.3d 1057, 1073–74 (9th C ir. 2013). AFFIRM E D.