United States v. Herman Quinones and Antonio Quinones

Second Circuit

United States v. Herman Quinones and Antonio Quinones

582 F. App'x 17

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 31, 2014

Docket13-3369 (L), 13-3377(con)

StatusUnpublished

This text of 582 F. App'x 17 (United States v. Herman Quinones and Antonio Quinones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Herman Quinones and Antonio Quinones, 582 F. App'x 17 (2d Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendants-appellants Antonio and Herman Quinones, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b). Following their convictions on charges including the distribution of controlled substances, defendants moved for a new trial on the basis of alleged newly discovered evidence — specifically, the full names, correctly spelled, of the attorneys who had provided defendants certain counsel regarding their internet pharmacy business. The district court concluded that the allegedly new evidence failed in every respect to meet the *18 requisite standard required for a new trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the denial of a Rule 33 motion for “abuse of discretion.” United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 107 (2d Cir. 2013). See generally In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) (explaining the term of art “abuse of discretion,” which includes errors of law and clearly erroneous assessments of the evidence). The district court’s findings will thus be upheld unless they are “wholly unsupported by [the] evidence.” United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 111, 66 S.Ct. 464, 90 L.Ed. 562 (1946); accord United States v. Polisi, 416 F.2d 573, 576 (2d Cir.1969). In order to obtain Rule 33 relief based on a claim of newly discovered evidence, the burden is on the defendant to show:

(1) that the evidence is newly discovered after trial; (2) that facts are alleged from which the court can infer due diligence on the part of the movant to obtain the evidence; (3) that the evidence is material; (4) that the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (5) that the evidence would likely result in an acquittal.

James, 712 F.3d at 107 (citing United States v. Owen, 500 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We likewise review the decision as to whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 350 (2d Cir.1995).

Here, the record and relevant case law reveal that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ new trial motion. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough decision.

We have considered all of defendants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendants-appellants Antonio and Herman Quinones, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b). Following their convictions on charges including the distribution of controlled substances, defendants moved for a new trial on the basis of alleged newly discovered evidence — specifically, the full names, correctly spelled, of the attorneys who had provided defendants certain counsel regarding their internet pharmacy business. The district court concluded that the allegedly new evidence failed in every respect to meet the *18 requisite standard required for a new trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review the denial of a Rule 33 motion for “abuse of discretion.” United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79, 107 (2d Cir. 2013). See generally In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) (explaining the term of art “abuse of discretion,” which includes errors of law and clearly erroneous assessments of the evidence). The district court’s findings will thus be upheld unless they are “wholly unsupported by [the] evidence.” United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 111, 66 S.Ct. 464, 90 L.Ed. 562 (1946); accord United States v. Polisi, 416 F.2d 573, 576 (2d Cir.1969). In order to obtain Rule 33 relief based on a claim of newly discovered evidence, the burden is on the defendant to show:

(1) that the evidence is newly discovered after trial; (2) that facts are alleged from which the court can infer due diligence on the part of the movant to obtain the evidence; (3) that the evidence is material; (4) that the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (5) that the evidence would likely result in an acquittal.

James, 712 F.3d at 107 (citing United States v. Owen, 500 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We likewise review the decision as to whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 350 (2d Cir.1995).

Here, the record and relevant case law reveal that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants’ new trial motion. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough decision.

We have considered all of defendants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 F. App'x 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-herman-quinones-and-antonio-quinones-ca2-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack