ORDER

TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion for a new trial and for a judgment of acquittal. [DE 141]. The government has responded in opposition. For the reasons discussed below, petitioner's motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2010, petitioner pied guilty, with the benefit of a plea agreement, to one count of health care fraud and aiding and abetting. [DE 7]. On September 10, 2010, the Court sentenced petitioner to 120 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release. [DE 41]. Petitioner did not appeal the judgment. On September 9, 2011, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [DE 44]. On November 28, 2011, the Court amended the judgment and dismissed petitioner's remaining habeas claims as moot. [DE 51].

On December 9, 2011, petitioner appealed from the amended judgment and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and dismissed in part. [DE 57]. On July 30, 2013, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [DE 61]. Petitioner filed a subsequent motion alleging an invalid sentence and a motion for leave to conduct discovery. The Court dismissed petitioner's § 2255 motion and denied the subsequent motions. [DE 77]. On June 10, 2014, the Court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration, and to the extent that the motion raised new grounds for relief under § 2255, dismissed those claims as second or successive. [DE 90]. Petitioner noticed an appeal of that order. [DE 95]. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal, and the mandate issued. [DE 104, 110]. In March 2015, petitioner's motion for return of property post-trial was denied. [DE 109]. Petitioner appealed this order. [DE 111]. This appeal was also dismissed, and the mandate issued. [DE 118, 125]. Petitioner filed another motion for return of property, which was denied. [DE 128, 134]. Petitioner has also filed a "Motion for Clarification of Due Process," which was denied. [DE 140]. Presently before the Court is petitioner's motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. [DE 141].

DISCUSSION

Petitioner presently seeks relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 33 and 29.

Petitioner cites Rule 33 for the proposition that a court may grant a new trial "if the interest of justice so requires" and, if the basis for the motion is newly discovered evidence, the motion is filed within a certain time period. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. Regardless of the issue of petitioner's timeliness, Rule 33 relief is not available to petitioner, as she pled guilty. [DE 25, 37, 57, 77]. "By its express terms, Rule 33 is confined to those situations in which a trial has been had." United States v. Strom, 611 Fed. Appx. 148, 149 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir. 1995)). Since petitioner had no trial, she cannot now successfully move for a new trial.

Petitioner also seeks relief under Rule 29, which permits the Court to enter a judgment of acquittal during or after a trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. Once again, however, the plain language of the rule requires a trial, which petitioner did not have as a result of her guilty plea. [DE 25, 37, 57, 77]. Accordingly, Rule 29 also provides no relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion for a new trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 33 and 29 is DENIED. [DE 141].

SO ORDERED.