Noriega

MEMORANDUM ***

Manuel Arturo Noriega appeals the district court’s judgment, convicting him of one count of conspiring to transport illegal aliens and two counts of transporting illegal aliens, and sentencing him to 21 months in prison.

Noriega contends that the district court erred by denying him a new trial based on the prosecution’s inadvertent failure to disclose a witness’s prior juvenile conviction. Noriega asserts that the government’s failure to disclose the prior conviction was a Brady violation, that the conviction was newly-discovered evidence necessitating a new trial, and that a Confrontation Clause violation occurred because defense counsel was unable to cross-examine the witness about the prior conviction. We disagree.

Although the prior conviction was relevant to the witness’s credibility, its earlier discovery would not have changed the outcome of Noriega’s trial. See Bern v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1052-53 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining that to warrant relief under Brady, undisclosed evidence must undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial); see also United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1507 (9th Cir.1995) (noting that newly-discovered evidence must…