false testimony at the first trial and (2) impeachment evidence concerning Lopez and Godoy. Even assuming that this evidence is both favorable and undisclosed, Zuno-Arce cannot show prejudice, because there is no reasonable probability that, had it been disclosed, the evidence would have made a difference to the outcome of the trial. 1. Cervantes’ Recantation To prevail, Zuno-Arce must show that, sometime before or during his second trial, the government knew that Cervantes had testified falsely in the first trial. As noted above, however, Zuno-Arce has failed to demonstrate that Cervantes testified falsely, so a fortiori there is no way that Zuno-Arce could have demonstrated that the government knew that Cervantes testified falsely. See Matta-Ballesteros, 2000 WL 297328, at *1 (<HOLDING>). Included in Cervantes’ recantation was a
holding that district court did not clearly err in giving twolevel enhancement for similar conduct holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not clearly err in rejecting cervantes recantation as unreliable holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver holding that district court did not clearly err in declining to credit prisoners testimony about exhaustion