United States v. Jackson

10-736-cr United States v. Weston UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New 4 York, on the 5th day of May, two thousand eleven. 5 6 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 14 Appellee, 15 16 -v.- 10-736-cr 17 18 KEVIN JACKSON, AKA TREPPANTS, RYAN KING, VIVIAN MONTAQUE, 19 ANTHONY PHILLIPS, AKA CURTIS, DESMOND SHAW, KARL WILSON, AKA 20 BARRY, TAMARD CLEARY, AKA TOMMY, SHELDON FULLER, AKA ANDRE 21 BLAKE, AKA DAVID CAMPBELL, MARK BROWN, AKA BLACKBUD, AKA 22 BLACKS, AKA KIRK WATSON, CONRAD COOPER, AKA DERVIN, ROBERT 23 DELEON, AKA BOBBY SOCKS, AKA ROBERT MILLER, ENRICO THOMAS, AKA 24 MENG FENG, AKA RICO, STEPHEN MATTIS, MAXINE DAVIS, KEVON HOLT, 25 LEWIS CARRIDES, AKA DIBBLE, TEDANE MUIR, AKA SAMPSON, 26 GRANDVILLE NEWELL, AKA SHERLOCK, AKA DONALD THOMAS, MATTHEW 27 MARTIN, AKA BLACKS, 28 29 Defendants, 30 31 BOBBY WESTON, AKA BADNESS, 32 33 Defendant-Appellant. 34 1 2 FOR APPELLANT: FLORA EDWARDS, New York, NY. 3 4 FOR APPELLEE: STEVE C. LEE (Andrew L. Fish, on the 5 brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, 6 for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney 7 for the Southern District of New York, New 8 York, NY. 9 10 Appeal from an order of the United States District 11 Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.), 12 which denied Appellant’s third motion for a new trial. 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 14 AND DECREED that the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 15 Appellant Bobby Weston appeals from an order of the 16 United States District Court for the Southern District of 17 New York (Castel, J.), which denied his third motion for a 18 new trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 20 presented for review. 21 We review the district court’s decision for abuse of 22 discretion. United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 295 (2d 23 Cir. 2006). This court disfavors motions for a new trial, 24 United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 364 (2d Cir. 1995), 25 and has directed district courts to grant new trials only in 26 exceptional circumstances, United States v. Sanchez, 969 27 F.2d 1409, 1414 (2d Cir. 1992). “The ultimate test is 2 1 whether letting a guilty verdict stand would be a manifest 2 injustice. There must be a real concern that an innocent 3 person may have been convicted.” United States v. Canova, 4 412 F.3d 331, 349 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 5 and ellipsis omitted). 6 We have reviewed the district court’s order and 7 conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by denying 8 Weston’s third motion for a new trial. The district court 9 provided numerous reasons for denying Weston’s motion, all 10 of which were well within the court’s discretion. We have 11 considered all of Weston’s other arguments on appeal and 12 find them without merit. Accordingly, the district court’s 13 order denying Weston’s third motion for a new trial is 14 AFFIRMED. 15 FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk. 17 18 3