United States v. Carasco

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 25-2010
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2010 D.C. No. Appellee, 8:19-cr-00169-JVS-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JESUS ERIC CARASCO,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Eric Carasco appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carasco contends that, after trial, the government disclosed a video

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). recording that would have discredited testimony by law enforcement that Carasco

confessed after being read his Miranda rights. Even if this evidence was newly

discovered, it was merely impeaching and it does not indicate that a new trial

would probably result in acquittal. See United States v. Harrington, 410 F.3d 598,

601 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth five-part test that defendant must satisfy to

prevail on a Rule 33 motion). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1259

(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

We do not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

The motion for bail pending appeal is denied as moot. All other pending

motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2010