ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

On May 11, 2016, defendant Marc Christopher Harmon was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and five counts of wire fraud following a jury trial. See Dkt. No. 161. Now, Harmon moves for a judgment of acquittal on all six counts, contending the evidence presented by the United States at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c). Alternatively, Harmon moves to set aside the verdict and also requests a new trial on all six counts in the interest of justice. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. As the trial record contains evidence sufficient to support the convictions, Harmon's motions are denied.1

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a) requires a judgment of acquittal "of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." In making that determination, courts ask "whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Harmon seeks a judgment of acquittal because the government allegedly failed to prove each element of all six crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial record contains evidence, however, sufficient for the trier of fact to have found the essential elements of these crimes according to that standard. Harmon's motion for a judgment of acquittal on each count is therefore denied.

According to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, courts may "vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." A "court need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict; it may weigh the evidence and in so doing evaluate for itself the credibility of the witnesses." United States v. A. Lanoy Alston, D.M.D., P.C., 974 F.2d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks omitted). "If the court concludes that, despite the abstract sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred, it may set aside the verdict, grant a new trial, and submit the issues for determination by another jury." Id. at 1211-12 (quotation marks omitted). Here, once again, Harmon contends a fresh look at the evidence establishes the United States failed to prove every element of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence, however, as previously noted, is sufficient to sustain the convictions, and does not preponderate in a manner that calls for the relief Harmon now seeks.

Accordingly, Harmon's request to set aside the verdict and obtain a new trial is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.