for robbery, assault, burglary, grand theft, and passing bad checks. During direct examination, the prosecutor acknowledged that Banschenbach had “[b]een rather busy in [his] life of crime.” Furthermore, he testified that he had previously worked as an informant in a county jail. Given the substantial body of impeachment evidence in the trial record against LaCour and Banschenbach, “any incremental impeachment value” that Pyles would have garnered from disclosure of additional informant activities by LaCour and Banschenbach “does not raise a reasonable probability that, had the [information] been disclosed ..., the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Drew v. Collins, 964 F.2d 411, 419-20 (5th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Vgeri, 51 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Abello-Silva, 948 F.2d 1168,
holding that the prosecutions failure to disclose information regarding a witnesss past cooperation with law enforcement did not constitute a brady violation in light of other impeachment evidence in the record including testimony regarding the witnesss extensive drug use and past cooperation with the dea holding that cooperation was insufficient where the defendants cooperation was based on his confession to the charged crimes holding that the governments failure to disclose a deal whereby it dismissed a drug indictment against a witness who was crucial to the governments case was immaterial in light of testimony regarding the witnesss prior felony convictions extensive involvement in the drug trade and past informant activity holding that a prosecutors comment that a witnesss cooperation had convicted 23 other people impermissibly bolstered witnesss credibility through evidence outside the record holding that defense counsel had made effective use of the materials and hence the tardy disclosure of cooperating witnesss prior statements on the eve of the witnesss testimony did not constitute a brady violation