                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                                             F I L E D
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS          March 8, 2004

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                       _____________________                     Clerk

                            No. 03-30929
                       _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

                              versus

DONNIE W. VALENTINE, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.
__________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Louisiana
                       USDC No. 02-CR-10009-1
_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Assuming that

the late disclosure of the subject information constituted a

violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or Giglio v.

United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), we are unconvinced that the

government’s failure to disclose until after trial had begun in any

way prejudiced the defendant or affected the outcome.           United

States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1050 (5th Cir. 1994).




     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
     We   also   AFFIRM    the   district   court’s   enhancement    of   the

defendant’s sentence for his aggravating role in the offense. U.S.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3B1.1(c); United States v. Valencia, 44

F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995).        Finally, we lack jurisdiction to

consider the district court’s denial of Valentine’s request for a

downward departure.       United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 263 (5th

Cir. 1998)(en banc).

                                                                    AFFIRMED.




                                      2
