Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael HATCHER, Appellant; United States of America, Appellee, v. Joseph Anthony Porrello, Appellant; United States of America, Appellee, v. Angelo Porrello, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-07
Citations: 142 F. App'x 956
Docket Number: Nos. 02-1308WM, 02-1709WM, 02-1723WM, 01-1701WM, 02-1710WM, 02-2068WM, 02-1704WM, 02-1722WM, 02-3582WM
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael HATCHER, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Joseph Anthony Porrello, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Angelo Porrello, Appellant.
Judges: Before BOWMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 956–957

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael HATCHER, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Joseph Anthony Porrello, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Angelo Porrello, Appellant.
Nos. 02-1308WM, 02-1709WM, 02-1723WM, 01-1701WM, 02-1710WM, 02-2068WM, 02-1704WM, 02-1722WM, 02-3582WM.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2003.
Decided Sept. 7, 2005.
Victor B. Peters of Kansas City, MO, David B.B. Helfrey of St. Louis, MO, James R. Wyrsch of Kansas City, MO., for appellant.
Paul S. Becker, AUSA, Kansas City MO, for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
. The Honorable Richard S. Arnold died on September 23, 2004. This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In a previous opinion in this case, United States v. Hatcher, 323 F.3d 666 (8th Cir.2003), we held the bulk of appellants' arguments lacked merit, but remanded so the district court could determine whether tape-recorded conversations between various cooperating witnesses and their attorneys should have been turned over to the defense. We retained jurisdiction to consider the result of the district court's inquiry, and it has now certified to us it has reached a conclusion. On remand, the district court concluded appellants were not prejudiced by the non-disclosures. We conclude the district court properly resolved this claim and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
The order and judgment of the district court are affirmed in all respects.