1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3135

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern

David Lionell Taylor, Jr., Also * District of Iowa.

Known as BC, Also Known as *

Bone Crusher, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 9, 1999

Filed: April 14, 1999

 ___________

Before McMILLIAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and

SACHS,1 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Lionell Taylor appeals his conviction by a jury on two counts of

violating federal drug laws. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), § 846.
2The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

2–

On appeal, he maintains that the trial court2 erred in denying his motion for a new

trial, that the government violated his due process rights by withholding exculpatory

material, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his counsel

before trial.

Mr. Taylor's motion for a new trial was unusual in that it was made on the

ground that he had been denied the right to the effective assistance of counsel secured

by the sixth amendment to the Constitution. Ordinarily, such motions are made

post-appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; but in this instance the trial court held more than

one hearing on the motion in the belief, correct we think, that this kind of claim may

be heard and determined in the context of a post-trial motion for a new trial. See

United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 650-51 (4th Cir. 1995). After a full

consideration of the matter, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that Mr. Taylor's

counsel did in fact provide him with effective representation. The trial court's

thorough opinion and careful scrutiny of the record make it unnecessary for us to visit

this issue in any detail. We are satisfied after our own examination of the record that

there is no error of law or fact in the trial court's conclusion that the ineffective

assistance claim ought to be denied.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), requires the government to provide

a defendant with any exculpatory material that it may have in its possession so that

the defendant may make use of it at trial. Mr. Taylor maintains that the government

failed to provide him with details about the manner in which one of the witnesses

against him had cooperated with the government in drug investigations in the past.

But Mr. Taylor did know that the witness had cooperated, and effective use of that

fact was made on cross-examination. Such details as Mr. Taylor subsequently learned

about that cooperation would not, we are satisfied, have had an effect on the jury's
3–

verdict, in light of the extensive cross-examination of the relevant witness that did

occur and the weight of the other evidence against Mr. Taylor. We therefore reject

his Brady claim.

Finally, our reading of the record convinces us that the trial court committed

no error in denying Mr. Taylor's motion to dismiss his counsel before trial.

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.