United States v. Paul W. Granville

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Paul W. Granville

736 F.2d 1480, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20279

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 23, 1984

Docket81-5816

StatusPublished

This text of 736 F.2d 1480 (United States v. Paul W. Granville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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. Paul W. Granville, 736 F.2d 1480, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20279 (11th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before RONEY, VANCE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On October 3, 1983, this Court affirmed the conviction of Paul W. Granville on one count of possessing counterfeit money. United States v. Granville, 716 F.2d 819 (11th Cir.1983). On petition for rehearing, the defendant correctly pointed out that the court had not considered defendant’s appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial, filed by defendant and ruled upon by the district court after this appeal had been filed but on a court-ordered remand for a hearing on the motion.

The petition for rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of considering whether the district court erred in denying the motion for a new trial. The motion carefully set forth alleged “newly-discovered evidence” and the effect it would have had upon the trial. The Government filed a response asserting several reasons why the motion should be denied under settled law concerning such matters. The district court denied the motion “for the reasons outlined in the Government’s response” to the motion. After consideration of the record and the supplemental brief filed by Granville addressing this issue, we hold that, under the standard of review permitted in such matters, the denial of a new trial must be affirmed.

For the reasons set forth in the original opinion of this Court and in this opinion, the judgment of conviction is hereby

AFFIRMED.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before RONEY, VANCE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On October 3, 1983, this Court affirmed the conviction of Paul W. Granville on one count of possessing counterfeit money. United States v. Granville, 716 F.2d 819 (11th Cir.1983). On petition for rehearing, the defendant correctly pointed out that the court had not considered defendant’s appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial, filed by defendant and ruled upon by the district court after this appeal had been filed but on a court-ordered remand for a hearing on the motion.

The petition for rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of considering whether the district court erred in denying the motion for a new trial. The motion carefully set forth alleged “newly-discovered evidence” and the effect it would have had upon the trial. The Government filed a response asserting several reasons why the motion should be denied under settled law concerning such matters. The district court denied the motion “for the reasons outlined in the Government’s response” to the motion. After consideration of the record and the supplemental brief filed by Granville addressing this issue, we hold that, under the standard of review permitted in such matters, the denial of a new trial must be affirmed.

For the reasons set forth in the original opinion of this Court and in this opinion, the judgment of conviction is hereby

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

736 F.2d 1480, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-paul-w-granville-ca11-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack