DOJ-OGR-00022104.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document36 Filed 06/09/20 Page 8of9 the government is in constructive possession of the materials where, as here, defendant has not presented any evidence suggesting that the BOP was involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case.” United States v. Rivera, No. 13 Cr. 149, 2015 WL 1540517, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2015); see, e.g., United States v. Merlino, 349 F.3d 144, 155 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that Government did not violate Brady obligation in failing to turn over tapes in BOP possession because “the BOP was not part of the prosecutorial arm of the federal government as it was not at all involved in either the investigation or the prosecution of the defendants”); United States v. Battle, 264 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1201-02 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (“Defendant implies that because the BOP employees are connected with the Department of Justice that the prosecution team constructively possessed exculpatory information that could have been within the knowledge of BOP staff. .. . Even if the Court assumes that some members of the BOP staff did possess favorable information that alone does not impute knowledge to the prosecution team.” (citing United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998)). Accordingly, Thomas’ motion to compel the Government to disclose evidence in the possession of the BOP is DENIED. IV. Other Materials Finally, Thomas seeks disclosure of information that he argues will tend to show that the conduct for which he is being prosecuted was: “1) rampant throughout the BOP; 2) made with knowledge and acquiescence by the leadership of the BOP; 3) made as a result of BOP policies that forced the defendant to engage in conduct for which he is now being charged criminally, and; 4) made in a manner which contains a possible discriminatory application of BOP policies by [G]overnment prosecutors.” Motion at 7. But Thomas has not provided support for his DOJ-OGR- 00022104