Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10532/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10532-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darren L. Reagan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10532

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DARREN L. REAGAN, also known as Dr. Darren L. Reagan,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-289-7

Before KING, JOLLY, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darren L. Reagan, federal prisoner # 37109-177, appeals the denial of 

his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33; he also appeals the denials of related 

motions to expedite proceedings, for appointment of a special prosecutor, for 

appointment of counsel, to recuse the trial judge, and for discovery. This court 

reviews the district court’s denial of Reagan’s motion for a new trial for an 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-10532 Document: 00512923307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2015
No. 14-10532

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Piazza, 647 F.3d 559, 564 (5th Cir. 

2011). “Generally, motions for new trial are disfavored and must be reviewed 

with great caution.” Id. at 565. Reagan has not shown that the evidence he 

relies upon is noncumulative, material, or would likely result in his acquittal 

if introduced at a new trial. See id. Consequently, he fails to show that the 

district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 33 motion. Id. at 564. 

As all of Reagan’s remaining motions are contingent upon his litigating his 

motion for a new trial, the district court likewise did not err by denying them. 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-10532 Document: 00512923307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2015