United States v. Oscar Rodriguez

MEMORANDUM

Oscar Rodriguez appeals the denial of his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2253(a), and 2255(d), and we affirm.

First, the district court correctly concluded that the government did not violate its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny. Reviewing for clear error, United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir.2003), the district court properly found that the government made no promises to Julian Wise-man, Ryan Davis, or Oscar Johnson in exchange for their testimony. The case agent and the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case both attested under penalty of perjury that no such promises were made, and the mere fact that the government moved to reduce these witnesses’ sentences following their testimony does not demonstrate the existence of a promise of leniency in exchange for that testimony, see United States v. Rodriguez, 766 F.3d 970, 988-89 (9th Cir.2014). Without a promise of leniency, there is no “evidence ... favorable to the accused ... [that was] suppressed by the government,” and therefore no Brady violation. See…