United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 8, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
No. 03-30929
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONNIE W. VALENTINE, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CR-10009-1
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Assuming that
the late disclosure of the subject information constituted a
violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or Giglio v.
United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), we are unconvinced that the
government’s failure to disclose until after trial had begun in any
way prejudiced the defendant or affected the outcome. United
States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1050 (5th Cir. 1994).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
We also AFFIRM the district court’s enhancement of the
defendant’s sentence for his aggravating role in the offense. U.S.
SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3B1.1(c); United States v. Valencia, 44
F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to
consider the district court’s denial of Valentine’s request for a
downward departure. United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 263 (5th
Cir. 1998)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2