Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-08048/USCOURTS-ca4-06-08048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lamont Henderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LAMONT HENDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (8:03-cr-00614-HMH)

Submitted: September 21, 2007 Decided: December 14, 2007

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-8048 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/14/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Henderson appeals the district court’s oral order

denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Henderson argues he has newly discovered evidence to

justify a new trial. He claims the Government failed to

acknowledge there was an immunity agreement in the case and the

court failed to disclose grand jury testimony. However, Henderson

cannot demonstrate that any of his claims constitute newly

discovered evidence. Henderson also objects to the form of the

district court’s oral order. Based on our review of the record, we

find no evidence that Henderson was prejudiced by either an oral

ruling on his motion or the district court’s entry of a “docket

text order” denying his motion. Cf. Blanco de Belbruno v.

Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying

Henderson’s motion for a new trial. We also deny Henderson’s

motion for summary judgment. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-8048 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/14/2007 Pg: 2 of 2