to disclose cannot be harmless. There is no need to conduct a redundant test. See United States v. Meek, 44 M.J. 1, 5 n. 2 (C.A.A.F.1996) (noting that to the extent that the harmless error test is incorporated into another element of the test, then the harmless error test may be unnecessary). 10 . Appellant, despite knowing of Dr. MacDo-nell’s opinion prior to sentencing, did not ask for a continuance or take any steps to produce Dr. MacDonell on sentencing or otherwise make his testimony available at sentencing. This failure belongs to Appellant, not the Government. Appellant knew of the information with sufficient time to use the information on sentencing; thus, the evidence was timely disclosed in regard to sentencing. See DiSimone v. Phillips, 461 F.3d 181, 196-97 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). EFFRON, Senior Judge, with whom ERDMANN,
holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances recognizing that there is no brightline rule for when a disclosure is timely rather the question is whether the evidence was disclosed in sufficient time for an accused to take advantage of the information a determination necessarily dependent on the totality of the circumstances holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a meansplusfunction limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art