United States v. Gormley

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Gormley

112 F. App'x 310

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Gormley. Read the opinion of the Court — 65 F. App'x 502 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 9, 2004·No. 04-6126, 04-6127·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, James Gormley appeals the district court’s order denying a motion for new trial filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, and the court’s denial of Gormley’s subsequent motion to reconsider that order. “The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial is within the broad discretion of the district court.” United States v. Tucker, 376 F.3d 236, 238 (4th Cir.2004). The district court should exercise that discretion to grant a new trial sparingly, and only when the weight of evidence is heavily against the verdict. United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1185, 124 S.Ct. 1408, 158 L.Ed.2d 91 (2004). Gormley’s motion was timely only as a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b). The district court properly considered this Circuit’s five-part test for assessment of such a motion, see United States v. Lofton, 233 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir.2000), to find that Gormley’s allegations do not warrant a new trial. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gormley’s motion for new *311 trial and his motion to reconsider that denial.

In his motion to reconsider, Gormley also requested a writ of mandamus against the Bureau of Prisons. We review a denial of mandamus for abuse of discretion. Marquez-Ramos v. Reno, 69 F.3d 477, 479 (10th Cir.1995). A plaintiff may be entitled to mandamus relief “only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984). As Gormley has not shown his clear entitlement to the specific relief requested, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mandamus petition.

Thus, we affirm the decisions of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, James Gormley appeals the district court’s order denying a motion for new trial filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, and the court’s denial of Gormley’s subsequent motion to reconsider that order. “The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial is within the broad discretion of the district court.” United States v. Tucker, 376 F.3d 236, 238 (4th Cir.2004). The district court should exercise that discretion to grant a new trial sparingly, and only when the weight of evidence is heavily against the verdict. United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1185, 124 S.Ct. 1408, 158 L.Ed.2d 91 (2004). Gormley’s motion was timely only as a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b). The district court properly considered this Circuit’s five-part test for assessment of such a motion, see United States v. Lofton, 233 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir.2000), to find that Gormley’s allegations do not warrant a new trial. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gormley’s motion for new *311 trial and his motion to reconsider that denial.

In his motion to reconsider, Gormley also requested a writ of mandamus against the Bureau of Prisons. We review a denial of mandamus for abuse of discretion. Marquez-Ramos v. Reno, 69 F.3d 477, 479 (10th Cir.1995). A plaintiff may be entitled to mandamus relief “only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984). As Gormley has not shown his clear entitlement to the specific relief requested, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mandamus petition.

Thus, we affirm the decisions of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

United States v. Gormley, 112 F. App'x 310 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

112 F. App'x 310 (United States v. Gormley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related