FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50462
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-02920-WQH-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JUAN CARLOS FLORES-ACUNA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Flores-Acuna was arrested at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry while
attempting to enter the United States from Mexico in a 2005 Chevrolet Silverado
truck, in which border patrol agents found approximately 3.56 kilograms of
methamphetamine. Flores-Acuna was convicted and sentenced under 21 U.S.C. §§
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
841(a)(1), 952 and 960, and appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a
new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Flores-Acuna filed a motion for a new trial based on alleged newly-
discovered evidence in the form of a post-trial psychological evaluation. “We
review a district court’s order denying a motion for a new trial made on the ground
of newly discovered evidence for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Hinkson,
585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court correctly
identified the standard for evaluating a motion for a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence. See United States v. Harrington, 410 F.3d 598, 601 (9th Cir.
2005). After reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Flores-Acuna’s motion because nothing
prevented defense counsel from requesting such an evaluation before trial, and the
psychiatric evaluation was not evidence which would show that a new trial would
probably result in acquittal.
We do not address Flores-Acuna’s appeal of his sentence, because, although
he raised the issue in his opening brief, he did not offer any argument with respect
to it. See United States v. Alonso, 48 F.3d 1536, 1544-45 (9th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
2