United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2268 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILBERT DEAN BICKNELL, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 4:20-cr-40046 — Sara Darrow, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED MAY 31, 2023 — DECIDED JULY 19, 2023 ____________________

Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court established that the government violates a criminal de- fendant’s right to due process when it suppresses evidence favorable to the defendant. 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). A decade later, in Giglio v. United States, the Court confirmed that Brady’s disclosure requirement applies to evidence that could be used to impeach a government witness. 405 U.S. 150, 154– 55 (1972). While Brady and Giglio recognize important 2 No. 22-2268 protections for criminal defendants, the government’s failure to adhere to their mandate does not result in automatic relief. Rather, a defendant must show that undisclosed information was “material either to guilt or to punishment.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; see also Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154–55. That caveat—Brady’s materiality requirement—explains the result here. Gilbert Bicknell was left completely in the dark about evidence that would have been useful to impeach a witness who testified against him at sentencing. That evi- dence would not have affected the outcome of his sentencing, though, so the government’s failure to disclose does not lead to relief under Brady or Giglio. But make no mistake: the government’s failure to adhere to its disclosure obligation deeply troubles us. It failed to in- form a criminal defendant before sentencing that one of the government’s key witnesses—the defendant’s own son— would be testifying pursuant to a cooperation agreement. That agreement was a textbook example of Giglio information, and it is very unsettling that more care was not taken to en- sure its disclosure before sentencing. Though we must affirm, we do so reluctantly. I A In July 2020 police observed Gilbert Bicknell and his son Michael at a gas station in Edwards, Illinois. Gilbert gave Mi- chael a brown package that police later discovered contained methamphetamine. Michael left the gas station in his car, fol- lowed by Gilbert in his truck and the police in three squad cars. When the police saw Michael commit a minor traffic vi- olation, they activated their lights and sirens. One squad car No. 22-2268 3 quickly passed Gilbert’s truck and sped after Michael’s car. Before the other cars could follow suit, Gilbert swerved over the center line of the road, briefly preventing the officers from passing his truck. He then pulled over, and the remaining squad cars passed to follow Michael. In time a federal indict- ment followed, charging Gilbert and Michael with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Gilbert pleaded guilty in August 2021. In an effort to avoid the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, Gilbert con- tended that he should be considered eligible for so-called safety-valve relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which au- thorizes a district court to impose a sentence below the other- wise statutory mandatory minimum in narrow circum- stances. Specifically, § 3553(f) applies only to low-level de- fendants charged with certain drug crimes who “truthfully provide[ ] to the Governm