United States v. Brian Keith Woods

Defendant-Appellant Brian Keith Woods appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence as untimely under an amended version of Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. Woods contends that: (1) retroactively applying the filing requirements of the amended Rule 33 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (2) the district court erred by applying amended Rule 33, instead of the version of the Rule that was in effect when he was convicted, to determine whether his motion was untimely.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

1. 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), u'se of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), conspiracy 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…