The court ruled that Kuyoro suffered no prejudice from the government’s late disclosure of two pieces of evidence: civil recoupment letters mailed to her in 2020 and an email to a third-party contractor who purportedly inspected her damaged property.
Kuyoro, who received approximately $33,000 in FEMA disaster relief funds after Hurricane Harvey, was charged with one count of disaster fraud and two counts of wire fraud. The government alleged her application was fraudulent, citing evidence that the Houston residence she claimed was damaged never had a "Unit C" and that she had never lived in Houston.
During trial, the government discovered it had failed to disclose the recoupment letters and an email to the FEMA inspector. The district court dismissed the indictment without prejudice as a sanction, citing its supervisory powers and noting that the violations, when taken together with discovery issues in two other cases, warranted dismissal.
The 5th Circuit panel, led by Judge Stephen A. Higginson, found no Brady violation. The court held that Kuyoro was not prejudiced disclosure of the recoupment letters because defense counsel received them in time to use them during cross-examination of the government’s key witness, Agent Mickey Johnson.
Regarding the inspector’s email, the court ruled the evidence was not suppressed under Brady because Kuyoro could have obtained the information through reasonable diligence. Defense counsel knew of the inspector’s existence and had access to the inspection report and the inspector’s FEMA identification number well before trial.
The court also found the district court abused its discretion in sanctioning Kuyoro under Rule 16. The trial court failed to consider the four-factor test from United States v. Garrett, which requires courts to weigh the reasons for nondisclosure, prejudice to the opposing party, feasibility of curing prejudice with a continuance, and other relevant circumstances.
Although the district court noted that a continuance could have cured the violations, it dismissed the indictment anyway, focusing instead on the government’s prior discovery violations in other cases. The 5th Circuit held that dismissal was the most severe sanction and was not the least severe remedy required under Rule 16.
The court also rejected the district court’s use of its supervisory powers to dismiss the indictment. The 5th Circuit noted that supervisory dismissals are invalid if they conflict with constitutional or statutory provisions. The district court explicitly found "no malicious or nefarious intent" by the prosecutors.
Kuyoro did not put on a defense and moved for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 after the discovery issues arose. The district court reserved ruling on that motion before dismissing the indictment.
The 5th Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the indictment.
The panel included Chief Judge Edith Haynes, Judge James C. Ho, and Senior Judge Stephen A. Higginson.