Cluster 657239

But see id. at 782 (finding that "the court identified no violation of any statute, constitutional or other recognized right except, perhaps, Rule 16 as a basis for exercising its supervisory powers” and reversing the court’s monetary sanctions against the government). 164 .

We have construed the latter authority as including a limited power to waive the Government’s immunity from sanctions, see Woodley, 9 F.3d at 782 (“Sovereign immunity does not bar a court from imposing monetary sanctions under an exercise of its supervisory powers.”); cf. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991) (“‘[I]n narrowly defined circumstances federal courts have inherent power to assess attorney’s fees against counsel.’” (citation omitted)), and in that respec…

However, a court may 3 only waive sovereign immunity “to remedy a violation of recognized statutory, procedural, or 4 constitutional rights[.]” United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir. 1993).

Va. 488, 493 , 466 S.E.2d 147, 152 (1995) (quoting United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, 382 9 F.3d 774, 782 (8th Cir. 2004).

Furthermore, “[a] court may impose money 6 awards against the United States only under an express waiver of sovereign immunity.” United 7 States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th 1993). 8 The EEOC imposed sanctions against the Army pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109 (f)(3). 9 This regulation grants an AJ the authority to take certain actions “in appropriate circumstances” 10 against a complainant, the agency against whom the complainant has filed a complaint, and its 11 employe…

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 778 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

STANDARDS OF REVIEW “We review de novo challenges to a conviction based on alleged Brady violations.” United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

"We review de novo whether the district court's instructions adequately presented the defendant's theory of the case," but "we review the instruction's `precise formulation' for an abuse of discretion." Id. (quoting United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993)).

“We review de novo whether the district court’s instructions adequately presented the defendant’s theory of the case,” but “we review the instruction’s ‘precise formulation’ for an abuse of discretion.” Id. (quoting United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993)).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

Thus, Rule 16(d) “provides a court with authority to ‘prescribe such terms and conditions as are just’ to remedy a violation of a discovery order.” United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting former language of Rule 16(d)(2)); see id. (finding that Rule 16(d), unlike analogous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, did not provide independent authority for a monetary sanction); United States v. Collins, 764 F.2d 647, 653 (9th Cir.1985) (“Where a party fails …

To the contrary, the Ninth Circuit held that monetary sanctions were not appropriate under Rule 16 because the Rule does not provide an express waiver of sovereign immunity and, unlike Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and 37(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 “provides no independent authority for a monetary sanction.” United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir.1993).

See also United States v. Tyndall, 521 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir.2008) (“A mid-trial disclosure violates Brady only if it comes too late for the defense to make use of it.”); United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993) (disclosure of Brady material “must be made when it is still of substantial value to the accused”); United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir.1983) (“No denial of due process occurs if Brady material is disclosed to appellees in time for its ef…

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

See United States v. Tyndall, 521 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir.2008) ("A mid-trial disclosure violates Brady only if it comes too late for the defense to make use of it.”); *336 United States v. Warren, 454 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir.2006) ("Late disclosure does not itself constitute a Brady violation.”); United States v. Knight, 342 F.3d 697, 708-09 (7th Cir.2003) (Brady not violated where defendant made effective use of tardily-disclosed evidence); McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674, …

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Lopez, 4 F.3d 1455, 1463-64 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir.1993); Graham v. United States, 981 F.2d 1135 , *88 1141-42 (10th Cir.1992).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 778 (9th Cir.1993).

See Aquino-Chacon, 109 F.3d at 939; United States v. Lowenstein, 108 F.3d 80, 83 (6th Cir.1997); United States v. Trevino-Martinez, 86 F.3d 65, 69 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1109 , 137 L.Ed.2d 310 (1997); United States v. Neville, 82 F.3d 750, 761-62 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 249 , 136 L.Ed.2d 177 (1996); United States v. Achter, 52 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir.1995); United States v. French, 46 F.3d 710, 714 (8th Cir.1995); Howell, 37 F.…

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Lunstedt, 997 F.2d 665 (9th Cir.1993)).

Unit *450 ed States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993) (amended).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Lunstedt, 997 F.2d 665 (9th Cir.1993)).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 1993); Graham v. United States, 981 F.2d 1135, 1141-42 (10th Cir. 1992).

United States v. Rice, 38 F.3d 1536, 1540 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993). 11 AFFIRMED. * Honorable William D.

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993).

There is no Brady violation unless the government fails to disclose evidence and "there is a reasonable probability that, had [it] been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

U.S. v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir.1993). 37 Pappadopoulos argues that the district court erroneously concluded she had the present or future capability to make restitution.

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir.1993). 6 It is well established that "[i]n a suit against the United States, there cannot be a right to money damages without a waiver of sovereign immunity...." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 954 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir.1993).

United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993).