United States v. Hill: Timeliness and Materiality as Gatekeepers—No Brady Duty for State-Held Evidence and No CI Disclosure When Informant Is Peripheral

Introduction

In this unpublished, per curiam decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a defendant’s late-filed motion to compel discovery related to a controlled buy and GPS tracking during a prior state investigation. The case, United States v. Jeffrey Monkentee Hill, arose from a federal prosecution following a search of Hill’s family residence at 394 Rogers Street, which uncovered drugs and firearms, leading to convictions for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Hill argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to compel (1) audio and video recordings of a confidential informant’s controlled purchase of crack cocaine and (2) GPS tracking data from devices placed on his car, as well as the (3) identity of the confidential informant (CI). He contended those materials were foundational to the state-federal investigation that culminated in the search warrant and, ultimately, his convictions.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected these arguments on multiple, independent grounds: first, Hill abandoned any timeliness challenge by failing to brief it; second, the motion to compel was untimely under Rule 12; and third, even on the merits, the materials were not “material” under Brady or Rule 16 because Hill’s requests were speculative, the government did not possess the state GPS data, and the CI was peripheral to the charged offenses.

Summary of the Opinion

The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Hill’s motion to compel for three principal reasons:

Abandonment: Hill did not challenge the district court’s timeliness ruling in his initial brief. Under Eleventh Circuit law, issues not raised in the initial brief are abandoned, and where a district court’s judgment rests on multiple independent grounds, an appellant must show each is erroneous to obtain reversal.
Untimeliness: Independently, the district court acted within its discretion to deny the motion as untimely. The court had set an August 3, 2023 pretrial deadline. Hill filed his motion roughly six months late, despite having the necessary information as early as July 2023 and offering no good cause for the delay.
Lack of Materiality/No Brady Violation: Even if timely, the requested materials were not material under Brady or Rule 16. The government did not possess the GPS data because it belonged to a state (not federal) investigation. Hill’s claims about potential exculpatory value of the controlled buy footage, GPS data, or the CI’s testimony were speculative. Moreover, the trial centered on drugs and firearms found at 394 Rogers Street, not on the controlled buy. The CI was not a witness and was not involved in the search forming the basis of the federal charges. Consequently, there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome had the evidence been disclosed.

The judgment was affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Cuya (11th Cir. 2020): Clarifies that denials of motions to compel discovery are reviewed for abuse of discretion. This set the baseline appellate standard, giving the district court latitude and making reversal difficult absent clear error.
United States v. Gutierrez (11th Cir. 1991) and Roviaro v. United States (U.S. 1957): Establish the informant’s privilege and the balancing test for whether a CI’s identity must be disclosed—considering the CI’s role, the defense’s need, and the government’s interest in nondisclosure. The court applied this framework to conclude disclosure was not warranted where the CI was involved in a collateral controlled buy and not in the search underlying the charges, and the CI was not a government witness.
United States v. Andres (11th Cir. 2019) and United States v. Wright (11th Cir. 2010): Explain that untimely motions falling under Rule 12(b)(3) are subject to plain error review absent good cause. Wright also provides the plain-error test. This underscored that late-filed discovery motions face steep appellate hurdles.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(E), 12(c)(1), 12(c)(3): Authorize courts to set pretrial motion deadlines and deem Rule 12(b)(3) motions untimely if not filed by those deadlines unless good cause is shown.
United States v. Curbelo (11th Cir. 2013): No good cause exists where the defendant had the necessary information before the pretrial deadline but failed to act; strategy or inadvertence does not qualify. The court emphasized Hill had the information by July 2023 yet filed nearly six months late without justification.
United States v. Taylor (11th Cir. 1986): Courts may deny pretrial motions as untimely. This case supports the district court’s threshold denial on procedural grounds.
Brady v. Maryland (U.S. 1963) and United States v. Stahlman (11th Cir. 2019): Set the Brady framework and clarify that a defendant must show the government possessed favorable, suppressed evidence that creates a reasonable probability of a different result. The Eleventh Circuit relied on this to reject Hill’s Brady claim, noting the federal government did not possess the GPS data and the remaining requests were speculative and not outcome-critical.
United States v. Arias-Izquierdo (11th Cir. 2006): Courts will not order discovery based on speculation; Brady is not a roving discovery device. This directly addressed Hill’s speculative assertions about the potential exculpatory nature of the controlled buy footage and CI testimony.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E) and United States v. Jordan (11th Cir. 2003): Rule 16 requires disclosure of items material to defense preparation, used in the case-in-chief, or obtained from the defendant. Jordan requires a specific request and explanation of materiality; conclusory claims are insufficient. The court found Hill failed this standard: the items were not used in the government’s case-in-chief, did not belong to him, and were not shown to be material to his defense.
United States v. Wright (11th Cir. 2010) and United States v. Maher (11th Cir. 2020): Issues not raised in the opening brief are abandoned; when a district court’s judgment rests on multiple independent grounds, an appellant must overturn each. Hill’s failure to challenge the timeliness ruling itself justified affirmance.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps, any one of which independently supported affirmance.

1) Abandonment and Timeliness

The district court set August 3, 2023 as the pretrial motions deadline. Hill filed his motion to compel almost six months late, despite admitting he had the pertinent information (evidenced by a July 2023 email to the government). He offered no “good cause,” and strategy or inadvertence cannot fill that gap. On appeal, Hill did not even challenge the timeliness ruling in his initial brief, which constituted abandonment. Under Wright and Maher, that alone warranted affirmance.

Independently, the district court’s denial was a proper exercise of discretion under Rule 12: courts may set deadlines, deem untimely Rule 12(b)(3) motions, and deny them absent good cause. The Eleventh Circuit found no error in that procedural ruling.

2) Brady: No Possession, Speculation, and No Materiality

Hill’s Brady theory had three fatal flaws:

Government possession: Brady obligations extend to evidence in the possession of the prosecution. The court found the federal government did not possess the GPS tracking data because it was part of a state investigation. That defeats Brady’s first element as to the GPS records.
Speculation: As to the audio/video of the controlled buy and the CI’s potential testimony, Hill speculated that these materials might exculpate him (e.g., that he might not appear in the video or that the CI might provide favorable information). Arias-Izquierdo cautions that speculation does not warrant discovery; Brady is not a fishing license.
Materiality to outcome: The trial focused on drugs and firearms found at 394 Rogers Street, not on the controlled buy or GPS surveillance. Hill also presented evidence about his time spent at that location. The Eleventh Circuit concluded there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome had the disputed materials been disclosed, so Brady materiality was not met.

3) Rule 16: No Use in Case-in-Chief, Not Defendant’s Property, and No Demonstrated Materiality

Rule 16 requires disclosure if items are (1) material to defense preparation, (2) used by the government in its case-in-chief, or (3) obtained from the defendant. None applied:

The government did not use the controlled buy materials, CI identity, or GPS data at trial.
The items were not obtained from Hill.
Hill did not specifically explain materiality to his defense, as Jordan requires. The controlled buy and GPS were not the subject of the federal charges, and Hill’s materiality assertions were speculative.

4) Informant’s Privilege and Roviaro/Gutierrez Balancing

The request to unmask the CI failed because the CI’s role was limited to a controlled buy that did not underpin the federal charges tried to the jury. The CI was not a government witness and did not participate in the search at 394 Rogers Street. Under Roviaro and Gutierrez, the balancing of the CI’s participation, the defense’s need, and the government’s interest in nondisclosure weighed against disclosure. Hill did not show that the CI’s identity would aid a specific defense related to the charged search or trial issues.

Impact and Significance

Although designated “Not for Publication,” this decision is a crisp, practice-oriented reminder of several important principles in federal criminal litigation within the Eleventh Circuit:

Strict enforcement of pretrial motion deadlines: Defense counsel must bring Rule 12(b)(3) motions—including motions to compel discovery supporting pretrial suppression or trial strategy—by the court’s deadline or establish concrete good cause. Absent that, appellate review will be deferential or foreclosed by abandonment.
Brady is not a discovery tool for speculation: Requests premised on what materials might show are insufficient. Defendants must articulate how withheld evidence is favorable and reasonably likely to affect the outcome.
Government “possession” matters: Materials held by state authorities and not in the federal government’s possession ordinarily do not trigger federal Brady obligations. Practically, this pushes defendants toward subpoenas or state discovery mechanisms when evidence sits outside the federal prosecution team.
Rule 16 materiality is specific, not general: Defendants must show how each requested item concretely advances defense preparation. Collateral investigative episodes (like a controlled buy preceding a search) are not automatically material to the elements tried to the jury.
Limits on CI disclosure: When a CI is peripheral to the charged offense, not a witness, and not tied to the critical events at trial (e.g., the search), courts will likely preserve the government’s informant privilege.
Appellate preservation strategy: When a district court denies relief on multiple independent grounds, appellants must challenge each. Failure to brief timeliness—a procedural bar that alone sustains the judgment—can end the appeal.

Going forward, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit will likely cite this opinion as persuasive authority when confronted with late-filed discovery motions tied to speculative Brady theories or to materials outside federal possession, particularly where the trial issues are bounded by a search’s results rather than earlier investigative steps.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Brady material: Evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment and in the government’s possession. “Material” means there is a reasonable probability disclosure would have changed the outcome. Speculation does not suffice.
Rule 16(a)(1)(E) materiality: A defendant must explain specifically how an item helps prepare the defense; general claims are inadequate.
Rule 12 deadlines and good cause: Courts can set deadlines for pretrial motions. If a motion is late, the defendant must show good cause—having the information but opting not to file (or forgetting) is not good cause.
Abandonment on appeal: If an appellant does not argue an issue in the opening brief, the court treats it as abandoned and will not consider it.
Plain-error review: A stringent standard applied when an issue was not preserved below. The appellant must show an obvious error that affected substantial rights and undermined the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
Informant’s privilege and Roviaro balancing: The government can withhold a CI’s identity, unless the defendant shows a particularized need, considering the CI’s role in the offense, the defense’s need for the testimony, and the government’s interest in confidentiality.
Per curiam, Non-Argument Calendar, Not for Publication: Per curiam means the opinion is by the court as a whole, not a single judge. Non-Argument Calendar means the case was decided without oral argument. Not for Publication indicates the opinion is nonprecedential, though it may be cited as persuasive authority subject to circuit rules.

Practical Guidance

File early, explain specifically: If seeking Brady/Rule 16 materials, meet deadlines and explain with precision how each item is material to elements at issue in the federal trial.
Identify possession: Confirm whether the federal prosecution actually possesses the sought evidence. If it resides with state authorities, consider Rule 17(c) subpoenas or state court processes.
Don’t rely on collateral investigations: A controlled buy or surveillance leading to a warrant is not automatically relevant to a later trial centered on what was found in a search unless you can tie it to a viable defense (e.g., a Franks challenge raised timely).
Preserve all issues and grounds: On appeal, challenge each independent basis of the district court’s ruling; failure to brief one (e.g., timeliness) can be dispositive.

Conclusion

United States v. Hill fortifies two gatekeeping requirements for criminal discovery: timeliness and materiality. The Eleventh Circuit held that a late motion to compel, unaccompanied by good cause and not defended on appeal, fails at the threshold. Even setting timeliness aside, Brady and Rule 16 do not authorize speculative fishing expeditions, especially where the government does not possess the evidence, the evidence was not used at trial, or it relates only tangentially to the charged conduct. And the informant’s privilege persists where the CI is peripheral to the offense tried and is not a witness.

The decision underscores the importance of disciplined pretrial practice: meet deadlines, substantiate materiality with specificity, and understand the limits of federal disclosure obligations—particularly in cases with parallel or antecedent state investigations. While unpublished, Hill serves as a clear, practical roadmap for litigants and courts navigating discovery disputes at the intersection of Brady, Rule 16, and the informant’s privilege.