FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 6, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 56 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 7 :1 0- cr-0 01 85 -LSC-J EO-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOSE ANTONIO HERRERA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ja nu ary 6, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Jo se Ant on io Herrer a ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e o f 21 0 m on th s o fim

pr is on m en t fo r po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te fiv e k il og ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne . 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . Herreraarg ue s ab ou t p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t, th e su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce, a jury

in st ru ct io n o n d el ib erat e ig no ran ce, the ad m is si on of t es ti m on y , andth e d en ia l o f rel ie f un de r th e sa fet y va lv e. W e aff

irm. Herre ra ar gu es th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto di sc lo se ex cu lp at ory ev id en ce in vi ol at io n o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto du e p ro ces s, Br ady v. Ma ry la nd , 37 3 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3) , bu t we d is ag ree. “ A Brad y vi ol at io n . . . oc cu r[s ] if t he pr os ecu ti on de lay s i n tran sm it ti ng ev id en ce dur in g atri al , bu t o nl y if t he de fen da nt can sh ow p reju di ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Beal e, 92 1 F .2d14 12 , 14 26 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Befo re Herr era’s fi rs t t ria l, a m ag is tra te jud ge ord eredth e p ro se cu ti on to pr oduc e an ag en t’s n ot es of an i nt erv ie w of Herrera , andth e p ro se cu ti on co m pl ie d wit h t ha t o rd er b efo re Herr era’s s eco ndtri al . Fed . R. Cri m . P. 16 (a)( 1) (B)( ii ). The m ag is tra te jud ge ’s ord er t o p ro du ce t he no te s was ina fo ot no te of an o rd er t ha t ne it he r pa rty no ti cedbe fo re Herr era’s fi rs t t ria l. Herre ra ar gu es th at , un de r Bra dy, th e ev id en ce s ho ul d h av e b een pro du cedso on er, b uthe fai ls to id en ti fy an y in fo rm at io n i n t he no te s t ha t was “ fav or ab le ” to hi m or “ m at eri al to th e es tabl is hm en t o f hi s g ui ltor i nn oc en ce.” Be al e, 92 1 F .2dat 1 42 6. Th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitde ni edHerrer a’s m ot io n t o d is m is s b as ed on th e al le ge d B rad y

vi ol at io n. 2Herre ra ar gu es th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve th athe kn owi ng ly

po ss es se d o r in te nd edto di strib ut e th e 9 8.3 5 g ram s o f co cai ne fou ndin a hi dd en co m pa rtment o f hi s t ract ortra il er t ru ck , bu t the reco rdsupp orts hi s co nv ic ti on . Whe n Tro op er Darr el l Se ym ou r st ep pe d up t o t he win do w of Herrera ’s tru ckto co nduc t a c omm erci al ve hi cl e in sp ect io n, h e n ot ic edimm ed ia te ly wha t ap pe ared to be a hi dd enco m

pa rtment i n t he bu nkareath atha d b een co ve redwit h c arp etin di ffer en t co lo r th anth e res t o f th e cab . Herrera ’s con du ctwas i nc on si st en t wi th th atof aco m

m erci al tru ckdri ve r wit h t wo years e xp eri en ce: Herrer a p ro vi de d lo os e sh eet s o f pape r whe n a sk edto pro du ce h is lo g b oo k, an d h e was un ab le to tri gg er h is lo w airwarn in g d ev ic e wit ho utSeym ou r’s as si st an ce. Herre ra al so act edex tre m el y

ne rv ou s dur in g t he in sp ect io n. Herr era’s eyes o pe ne d “ real wid e” an d h e h ada “ real sh oc ke d andsu rp ris edlo ok ” whe n S eym ou r as ke d Herrerato pr oduc e sa fet y

art ic le s fo r th e truc k t ha t ar e st or edtypic al ly in t he bu nk ; upo n cl im bi ng in si de th e p atro l ca r, Herrer a laug he d u nc om fo rtabl y an d a sk edif h e co ul d “ go ou t t he re an d d ig up a pi ne tre e”; whi le in si de th e p ol ic e v eh ic le , Herre ra s crat ch edhi m se lf a ndco ug he d re pe at ed ly; an d, wh enqu es ti on edab ou t th e tr ee, Herr era s ta te d t ha t h e wou ldrem ov e th e tr ee fr om th e g ro un d u si ng hi s ha nd s i n l ie u o f a s ho ve l. Aft er Se ym ou r di sc ov eredth e co cai ne , Seym ou r to ld Herre ra t ha t h e was be in g a rres te d fo r “ th e d op e,” an d Herrerarep eat ed , “ th e 3do pe .” Late r, Herrer a to ldSeym ou r th athe ha d “ ha d aba d fe el in g abo utth is tri p.”

Less th antwo m on th s ea rli er, Ch arl es Eng le of t he Im m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s Enfo rcem en t ag en cy

ha d s ho wn Herrerawher e a h id de n c om pa rtment h adbe en ad de d t o t he sl eep in g c om pa rtment i n a no th er tru ckhe was driv in g fo r th e sa m e tru ck in g c om

pa ny. Alt ho ug h t he co m

pa rtment wa s empty, Eng le ex pl ai ne d t o Herre ra t ha t s im il ar co m

pa rtments were u se d t o t ran sp ort i ll eg al dru gs . Bas edon Herre ra’s en co un te rs wit h l aw en fo rcem en t, t he jury reas on ab ly fou ndth atHerrer a ha d a“ co ns ci ou sn es s o f gu il t,” Un it edSta te s v . Leon ard , 13 8 F .3d90 6, 9 09 (11 th Ci r. 19 98 ), an d the di st ric t co urt d idno t err by den y in g Herrera ’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al . In t he li gh t o f th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t Herrera , th e d is tri ct co urt al so di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitin stru ct edth e jury abo utbo th actua l kn owl ed ge an d d el ib erat e ig no ran ce. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Arias , 98 4 F .2d11 39 , 11 43 –4 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . Herre ra ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e ex cl ud edEng le ’s te st im on y as u ndul y

pre jud ic ia l, b utHerrer a’s arg um en t fa il s. Ev id en ce ab ou t Herre ra’s o bs erv at io n o f an ot he r hi dd enco m pa rtment i n a no th er t ru ckown edby th e sa m e co m

pa ny andhi s n ot ic e o f th e p ur po se forsu ch a co m

pa rtment wa s m at eri al an d, as he co nc ed es , no t a p rio r ba d a ctgo ve rn edby Feder al Ru le of Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ). Eng le ’s tes ti m on y was p ro ba ti ve an d n otun du ly prejud ic ia l. 4Eng le ’s tes ti m on y est ab li sh edon ly tha t h e in fo rm edHerrer a ab ou t t he pre se nc e an d p ur po se of ahi dd enco m

pa rtment. Herre ra al so arg ue s t ha t h e was en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r th e sa fet y va lv e, bu t we di sa gr ee. To qua li fy

forrel ie f un de r th e sa fety va lv e, a “ de fen da ntha s an affi rm at iv e res po ns ib il it y to tru th fu ll y

di sc lo se to th e g ov ern m en t al l i nf orm at io n an d e vi de nc e th athe ha s ab ou t the off en se an d a ll rel ev an t co nduc t.” Un it edSta te s v. J oh ns on , 37 5 F .3d13 00 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (f); Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s M anua l § 5C 1.2 (a) (No v. 2 01 0) . In re sp on se to hi s p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt, Herrera subm it te d afou r-p ag e st at em en t i n wh ic h h e d en ie d a ny kn owl ed ge ab ou t the co cai ne , andth e d is tri ctco urt d is cred it edHerrer a’s st at em en t co ns is te ntwit h t he jury’ s v erd ic t. The di st ric t co urt d idno t err by den y in g Herrera ’s reque stforrel ie f un de r th e sa fet y

va lv e. W e AFFIRM Herrer a’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e.

5