U.S. v. GILES, 3:09-CR-00203-RJC-DCK. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150917h95
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's Motion for New Trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, (Doc. No. 286), the government's Response, (Doc. No. 292), and the defendant's Reply, (Doc. No. 293). The instant motion is the defendant's latest attempt to re-litigate the nature of a California conviction that the Court determined during the trial, immediately following the trial, and at sentencing qualified as a felony. (Doc. No. 218:
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's Motion for New Trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, (Doc. No. 286), the government's Response, (Doc. No. 292), and the defendant's Reply, (Doc. No. 293). The instant motion is the defendant's latest attempt to re-litigate the nature of a California conviction that the Court determined during the trial, immediately following the trial, and at sentencing qualified as a felony. (Doc. No. 218: ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant's Motion for New Trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, (Doc. No. 286), the government's Response, (Doc. No. 292), and the defendant's Reply, (Doc. No. 293).
The instant motion is the defendant's latest attempt to re-litigate the nature of a California conviction that the Court determined during the trial, immediately following the trial, and at sentencing qualified as a felony. (Doc. No. 218: Order; Doc. No. 272: Sent. Hr'g Tr. at 9). The defendant now presents 1991 conviction records as "newly discovered evidence" more than three years after the verdict. Therefore, it is untimely. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1). Additionally, the information in the conviction records is already part of the record and does not alter the Court's previous rulings.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendant's Motion for New Trial, (Doc. No. 286), is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
