U.S. v. Brown, 13-243. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20180522859
Visitors: 18
Filed: May 21, 2018
Latest Update: May 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS KURT D. ENGELHARDT , District Judge . Presently before the Court are four (4) motions filed by Defendant Tracy Richardson Brown: (1) Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Rule 33 Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 246); (2) Second Motion for a New Trial (Rec. Doc. 264); (3) Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Appointment of Independent Mental Health Expert (Rec. Doc. 265); and (4) Motion for Bond Pending Disposition of Pending Motions (Rec. Doc. 266). The United St
Summary: ORDER AND REASONS KURT D. ENGELHARDT , District Judge . Presently before the Court are four (4) motions filed by Defendant Tracy Richardson Brown: (1) Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Rule 33 Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 246); (2) Second Motion for a New Trial (Rec. Doc. 264); (3) Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Appointment of Independent Mental Health Expert (Rec. Doc. 265); and (4) Motion for Bond Pending Disposition of Pending Motions (Rec. Doc. 266). The United Sta..
More
ORDER AND REASONS
KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are four (4) motions filed by Defendant Tracy Richardson Brown: (1) Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Rule 33 Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 246); (2) Second Motion for a New Trial (Rec. Doc. 264); (3) Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Appointment of Independent Mental Health Expert (Rec. Doc. 265); and (4) Motion for Bond Pending Disposition of Pending Motions (Rec. Doc. 266). The United States, through counsel, filed opposition memoranda to these motions. See Rec. Docs. 248, 333. Having carefully considered the supporting and opposing submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the Court rules as follows, for essentially the reasons contained in the United States' opposition memoranda:
(1) IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Rule 33 Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 246) is DENIED.
(2) IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for New Trial (Rec. Doc. 264) is DENIED. As fully explained in the United States' opposition memorandum, Defendant has failed to meet the standard governing newly discovered evidence as a basis for new trial, as articulated in United States v. Lopez-Escobar, 920 F.2d 1241, 1246 (5th Cir. 1991). See Rec. Doc. 333.
(3) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Appointment of Independent Mental Health Expert (Rec. Doc. 265) is DENIED.
(4) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Bond Pending Disposition of Pending Motions (Rec. Doc. 266) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Source: Leagle
