With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in light of the disclosed documents and any prejudice resulting from Defendant’s failure to do so is not attributable to the government’s violation of the principles set forth in Brady. See United States v. Delgado, 350 F.3d 520 (6th Cir.2003) (citing United States v. Corrado, 227 F.3d 528, 538 (6th Cir.2000)). Defendant’s argument that the belated disclosure of the documents prejudiced the entire defense, including voir dire and the opening statement is meritless. First, Defendant presents his argument on this issue in a perfunctory manner, providing no explanation of how the disclosed material would have altered his defense. Second, the pertinent information in the disclosed documents was, for the most part, already available to Defendant. See Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (<HOLDING>). Defendant was already aware that the

A: holding that even if attorney had secured defense witnesses  2255 relief was not warranted where the evidence against defendant at trial was so overwhelming that no reasonable probability exists that the result of the proceeding would have been different
B: holding that in order to show prejudice defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different
C: holding that upon remand if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable the trial court must review that new evidence as well as brady claims that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed
D: holding that there is no brady violation unless a reasonable probability exists that the disclosed evidence would have altered the result of trial
D.