Braswell
United States v. Braswell
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Cyrus D.A. Braswell appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motions for *784 judgment of acquittal, arrest of judgment, or new trial, as well as for return of property and change of venue. 1 To the extent we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we affirm.
As an initial matter, Braswell contends the district court’s denial of his motion for a change of venue was in error. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 21. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Etsitty, 130 F.3d 420, 424 (9th Cir.1997), we find none.
Braswell next contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal and motion for arrest of judgment. Because these motions were not filed within 7 days of the verdict, the district court correctly denied them as untimely. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, 34; Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 421 , 116 S.Ct. 1460 , 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996); Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278, 1279 (9th Cir.1970) (per curiam).
Braswell further contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial. The district court correctly found the motion timely because it was based upon newly discovered evidence and filed within 3…