U.S. v. Bicknell

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 156-month term of incarceration on drug distribution charge, even though defendant argued that he was entitled to new sentencing hearing, where government denied him due process by withholding existence of plea agreement with respect to government witness testifying at sentencing hearing. While defendant could have used said evidence for impeachment purposes, record showed no Giglio, 405 U.S. 150, violation arising out of government’s failure to disclose existence of written plea agreement, where defendant failed to establish that timely disclosure of plea agreement would have resulted in different sentence. This is so, because: (1) fact that witness (who was defendant’s son) was testifying on behalf of government was itself sufficient to convey to defendant that witness was cooperating with government, especially where witness conceded during his testimony that he had hoped for lesser sentence; (2) second government witness provided key testimony in favor of government stance on disputed issue as to whether defendant qualified for safety-valve sentencing treatment; and (3) Dist. Ct., which imposed instant sentence, was actually aware of plea agreement prior to imposing defendant’s sentence.