Cameron

MEMORANDUM **

1. On her motion for a new trial in the district court, Ms. Cameron proffered as newly discovered evidence the potential testimony of Mr. Tufenkchyan that she was not one of his co-conspirators. This Court has consistently held that co-defendants who offer exculpatory evidence after they have been sentenced do not offer “newly discovered” evidence, or evidence sufficiently credible to merit a new trial. United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1188-89 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Lockett, 919 F.2d 585, 591 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Diggs, 649 F.2d 731, 740 (9th Cir.1981). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms. Cameron’s motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence.

2. Ms. Cameron raises a challenge to the reasonableness of her sentence. At Ms. Cameron’s sentencing hearing, the district judge listened to Ms. Cameron’s arguments pertaining to the § 3553(a) factors that she had raised in mitigation, asked questions about the factors he was considering for sentencing purposes, and took into account the fact that her co-defendants had received 41-month and 30-month sentences. The court then…