Kortgaard

MEMORANDUM *

Laron Kevin Kortgaard appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury trial for manufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). We affirm his conviction and, in an order filed this date, defer submission of the sentencing issues.

First, the district court did not err in denying Kortgaard’s mistrial and new trial motions based on an alleged violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Because Kortgaard was not prejudiced, there is no Brady violation in the prosecution’s failure to produce the sensor logs until late in the trial. The various remedial measures granted by the district court provided Kortgaard with an adequate opportunity to consider and address the evidence and benefitted him in various other ways that would not have been available during a retrial. See United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 627 (9th Cir.2000); Territory of Guam v. Cruz, 70 F.3d 1090, 1091 (9th Cir.1995). Additionally, Kortgaard has failed to demonstrate how his strategy would have changed if he had had more time to consider the evidence. Id. at 1091-92 .

Second, the district court did not err in denying Kortgaard’s…