United States v. Reginald Twitty

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-7065
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-7065 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-7065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGINALD ANTONIO TWITTY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (6:19-cr-00898-TMC-1)

Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 27, 2026

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Antonio Twitty, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-7065 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Antonio Twitty appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R.

Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial and denying reconsideration. We review for abuse of

discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial. United States v. Parker, 790

F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2015). Rule 33 requires that a new trial motion based on newly

discovered evidence be filed within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty or

within 14 days if based on any other reason. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b). Accordingly, we

discern no reversible error in the district court finding that Twitty’s September 2025 motion

filed more than three years after his April 2022 guilty plea was untimely. Although the

district court mistakenly indicated that an untimely motion under Rule 33 deprived it of

jurisdiction, see Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 809 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting that the Supreme

Court has concluded “that Rule 33 is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule” and

signaled “its implicit approval of a district court’s jurisdiction to entertain an untimely Rule

33 motion”), Twitty has failed to present any circumstances suggesting that his filing was

delayed by “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b)(1)(B). Moreover, Twitty’s various

filings did not plausibly proffer any newly discovered evidence that would otherwise

support such a motion.

We therefore affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Twitty, No. 6:19-cr-

00898-TMC-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 2025; Nov. 20, 2025). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED