Munoz

Edward Munoz appealed his conviction following a jury trial for conspiring to structure financial transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324 . After hearing argument, we granted a limited remand for the district court to consider Munoz’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 motion. The district court denied that motion, from which Munoz has also appealed. We treat both appeals together, and affirm in each.

I

A

Taking the appeal from conviction first, Munoz argues that the government’s disclosure of information obtained during the post-trial safety-valve sessions with Loya, which would have impeached Woodland, offended Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). This information was communicated before sentencing, and was used by Munoz to challenge factual findings in the PSR. Information from subsequent sessions was also disclosed to Munoz within the time to file a motion for new trial. Therefore, it was still of “substantial value” and not a Brady violation. United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

B

Munoz contends that the government engaged in a pattern of misconduct that included failing to disclose…