Carrillo

*142 MEMORANDUM **

We find that all of Carrillo’s challenges to his conviction lack merit. We thus affirm his conviction.

There was no violation under Brady v. Maryland. 1 Carrillo has not identified any exculpatory evidence that the government has failed to produce or that it produced too late to be useful to Carrillo. 2 Even if he had, he has also failed to articulate a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of his case would have been different had certain information been provided or provided in a more timely manner. 3 The district court conducted an in camera review of the informant’s file and determined that there was no undisclosed material that would support Carrillo’s entrapment defense. We have examined the file ourselves and agree with this conclusion. 4 Carrillo was able to secure the informant’s presence at trial and had the opportunity to examine her using the government evidence that tended to undermine her credibility. The outcome of the case, we are confident, would not have changed had discovery proceeded as appellant argues it should have.

The district court’s refusal to allow Carrillo to treat the informant as a hostile witness on direct examination did…