Case ID: f-appx_422/html/0028-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rupinder KAUR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-1121-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 18, 2011.
    Karin Orenstein, Emily Berger (on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, Of Counsel, for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
    Bruno C. Bier, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Present: RALPH K. WINTER, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Rupinder Kaur appeals from her conviction by a jury of misappropriation of postal funds, 18 U.S.C. § 1711, and making false entries and reports of moneys, 18 U.S.C. § 2073. Kaur principally argues that the Government violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) by failing to adequately disclose a video clip about which the Government elicited testimony during redirect examination of one of its witnesses. Kaur requests a new trial or a judgment of acquittal on account of the Government’s alleged violation of Rule 16 of the Federal Criminal Rules of Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues presented on appeal.

Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a trial court “may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” “The test is whether ‘it would be a manifest injustice to let the guilty verdict stand.’ ” United States v. Guang, 511 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409, 1414 (2d Cir.1992)). A new criminal trial is proper if there is “ ‘a real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted.’ ” United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220, 232 (2d Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir.2001)). This Court reviews a denial of a Rule 33 motion for abuse of discretion. Id.

“We will not disturb [a] conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” United States v. Greer, 631 F.3d 608, 613 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Xiao Qin Zhou, 428 F.3d 361, 370 (2d Cir.2005)). This Court reviews de novo a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id.

In light of these principles, and after an exhaustive review of the record, we conclude for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court that the district court properly denied Kaur’s motion for a new trial and motion for a judgment of acquittal because the Government did not violate Rule 16 of the Federal Criminal Rules of Procedure.

We have considered all of Kaur’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.