United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 99-2358 ___________

Roeles Ortiz, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. *

__________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern No. 99-2360 District of Iowa. __________ [UNPUBLISHED] Sean Demarco Stone, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. *

__________

No. 99-2413 __________

Eric Gabriel Ortiz, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. *

__________

No. 99-2462 __________

Ramon Ortiz, Jr., * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: January 10, 2000

Filed: February 3, 2000 ___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

-2- Roeles Ortiz, Sean Demarco Stone, Eric Gabriel Ortiz, and Ramon Ortiz, Jr. (collectively Appellants) appeal the district court's adverse rulings on their motions for new trial and to vacate their sentences. We affirm.

The Appellants raise several contentions in support of their claims for a new trial and for correction of their sentences. Having reviewed the record, we reject their arguments. We agree with the district court's conclusions that, first, the newly discovered exculpatory evidence the government failed to disclose would not likely produce an acquittal if a new trial were granted or provide a basis to correct the Appellants' sentences, and second, because the withheld evidence does not undermine confidence in the verdicts and the sentences, the evidence does not satisfy the materiality requirement under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). We also conclude the district court's sentence-related factual findings about drug quantities and roles in the offenses are not clearly erroneous, the district court properly imposed a weapons enhancement, and the district court neither violated nor misapplied the sentencing guidelines. We are satisfied the district court properly denied the Appellants' motions for a new trial and to vacate their sentences, the appeal simply involves the application of settled principles of law to unique facts, and the issues do not warrant a comprehensive opinion. We thus affirm the district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-3-