Woods

I. FACTS

On July 9, 1998, following a three-day trial, a jury found Woods guilty of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d), use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), conspir- acy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Woods appealed his conviction, and we affirmed by a memorandum disposition. See United States v. Woods, 2000 WL 1359616 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2000) (mem.). Our mandate issued on December 13, 2000.

On September 21, 2001, Woods filed a pro se motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, under Fed- eral Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1 The timeliness of Woods’s motion for a new trial depended on whether the dis- trict court applied the filing requirements of the earlier ver- sion of Rule 33, in effect when the jury returned its guilty verdict, or of the amended version of Rule 33, in effect when Woods filed his motion.

Specifically, when the jury returned its guilty verdict in July 1998, Rule 33 required a defendant to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence within two years of “final judgment.”2 For…