Simpson

MEMORANDUM *

Benito Simpson, a state prisoner, appeals the judgment entered by the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court properly concluded that the government did not violate its duty to disclosure material evidence favorable to the accused pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Evidence is material “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).

Simpson contends that the prosecutor breached his Brady obligations by failing to disclose that one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, Rios, was involved in a pri- or murder-for-hire scheme. However, there is nothing in the record demonstrating that Rios was charged, convicted, or involved in any meaningful way in the prior murder for hire scheme, that he received immunity for testifying in the prior case, that he had ever been a…