Cook

United States v. Cook

Good Law
27 F. App'x 761
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 23, 2001No. 00-50110; D.C. No. CR 94-00281-MLRCalifornia299 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen E. Cook appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his Rule 33 motion for a new trial. Following a jury trial, Cook was convicted on five counts of smuggling, importing and selling endangered red-kneed Mexican tarantulas, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 and 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372 , 3373. We affirmed Cook’s convictions, but remanded for resentencing in United States v. Cook, No. 94-50607 1996 WL 144224 *1-2 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 1996) (unpublished disposition). We subsequently affirmed Cook’s resentencing in United States v. Cook, No. 97-50205, 1998 WL *762 879753 *1-2 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 1998) (unpublished disposition). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand.

Rule 33 mandates that “a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence may be made only within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 (1998). However, the district court denied Cook’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence because there was no newly discovered evidence. Cook filed his Rule 33 motion on February 3, 2000, almost six years after the jury verdict was entered on June 28,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.