United States v. Miller

*847 MEMORANDUM ***

Clark Anthony Miller appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 without an evidentiary hearing. 1 We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

We review a denial of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Kulczyk, 931 F.2d 542, 548 (9th Cir.1991). We also review a district court’s decision on whether to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Del Muro, 87 F.3d 1078 , 1080 n. 3 (9th Cir.1996).

Miller’s motion focuses on a declaration signed by Hector Bermudez, the government’s chief witness at Miller’s trial, and submitted as part of Bermudez’s own motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .

First, Miller argues that two paragraphs in Bermudez’s declaration provide new evidence that the Government suborned and knowingly presented false testimony at Miller’s trial:

The district court found that an evidentiary hearing was not needed because Bermudez’s declaration lacked credibility. We find no abuse of…