United States v. Jeanpierre, 636 F.3d 416

Jeanpierre was convicted of conspiracy to distribute 50+ grams crack cocaine, nine distribution counts, and felon in possession of a firearm; §851 information sought 20-year enhancement.
Pre-trial: government sought enhancement based on a 1998 Minnesota felony drug offense; district court accepted the enhanced mandatory minimum at sentencing.
First motion to dismiss: based on CAPRS wiretap reports; CAPRS disclosure occurred during trial; court denied dismissal and defense did not pursue further Jencks materials.
Second motion to dismiss: fingerprint reports produced late; defense used them in cross-examination and closing; court deemed issues moot for acquitted count.
Post-trial: motion for new trial based on Brady/Giglio concerns and a credibility ruling in an unrelated case; district court denied.
Sentence: district court imposed 240 months plus 10 years supervised release after rejecting challenges to §851 enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady/Due Process: timely disclosure	Jeanpierre argues repeated discovery violations violated due process.	Jeanpierre asserts government delayed CAPRS and fingerprint disclosures and hid adverse evidence.	No Brady violation; disclosures timely within trial; no prejudice from late CAPRS/fingerprint materials.
§ 851 enhancement applicability	Jeanpierre contends enhancement abused or exceeded statutory intent for street-level offender.	Jeanpierre argues Congress did not intend enhancements for low-to-mid-level retailers; government argues plain statutory authority.	Enhancement proper; statute plain—no requirement of being a 'major' distributor.

Ladouicer, 573 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2009) (Brady material must be material and suppressed to violate due process)
Almendares, 397 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 2005) (Brady material discovered during trial may still satisfy due process)
Spinelli, 551 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2008) (Giglio material requires materiality to merit retrial)
Garcia, 562 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2009) (Giglio material requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
Sine, 493 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2007) (Judicial findings of credibility may be hearsay; admissibility debated)
Dawson, 434 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2006) (Cross-examination about prior credibility determinations discretion of trial court)
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (U.S. 2009) (Plain-language statutory interpretation governs § 851 applications)
Sanchez, 517 F.3d 651 (2d Cir. 2008) (Prosecutorial discretion in filing information; constitutional constraints apply)
Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1962) (Discretionary enforcement must not be based on arbitrary classifications)
Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1979) (Prosecutorial discretion subject to constitutional constraints)
Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (U.S. 1996) (Presumption of regularity in prosecutorial decisions)