Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11757/USCOURTS-ca11-24-11757-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mauricio Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11757

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAURICIO GONZALEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:21-cr-80087-DMM-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-11757 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11757

Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mauricio Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his third motion for a new trial under Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 33. He argues that his motion was timely because he filed 

it within the three-year deadline and identified newly discovered 

evidence. The government raised a jurisdictional question in its 

response brief, arguing that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion because Gonzalez’s second motion for a 

new trial was already pending on appeal.

I .

When a district court lacks jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction 

on appeal only to correct the “lower court’s error in entertaining 

the suit.” Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc., 188 F.3d 1294, 1298 (11th 

Cir. 1999). 

Filing a notice of appeal “is an event of jurisdictional significance” that confers jurisdiction to the appellate court and divests 

the district court’s jurisdiction over aspects of the case involved in 

the appeal. United States v. Diveroli, 729 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 

2013) (quotation marks omitted). When a notice of appeal is filed, 

the district court maintains jurisdiction to take actions only “in aid 

of the appeal.” Id. Likewise, the district court generally maintains 

jurisdiction to entertain a motion for a new trial based on newly 

discovered evidence under Rule 33(b)(1) while an appeal is 

USCA11 Case: 24-11757 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 2 of 5
24-11757 Opinion of the Court 3

pending, and it can either deny the motion or indicate its intent to 

grant the motion. Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a); United States v. Khoury, 

901 F.2d 975, 976 & n.3 (11th Cir. 1990). However, the language 

of Rule 37 provides that it must be a “timely motion.” Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 37(a). 

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial 

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Scrushy, 721 F.3d 1288, 1303 

(11th Cir. 2013). We also review a denial of a motion on grounds 

of untimeliness for abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 918 

F.2d 1501, 1509 (11th Cir. 1990). “A district court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law in reaching its decision or bases its 

decision on findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Scrushy, 721 

F.3d at 1303.

Under Rule 33, a district court may “vacate any judgment 

and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 33(a). Generally, a motion for a new trial must be filed 

within 14 days after the verdict is returned. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

33(b)(2). An exception exists, however, for motions based on 

newly discovered evidence, which may be filed within three years 

of the return of the verdict. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1). 

The timeliness of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial is not a 

jurisdictional question but rather, a claim-processing rule. Eberhart 

v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005). The deadline for filing a 

motion for a new trial, based on any ground other than newly discovered evidence, is rigid. United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 

1154 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (upholding the district court’s denial 

USCA11 Case: 24-11757 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 24-11757

of a renewed motion for a new trial based on the interests of justice 

under Rule 33(b)(2) where the motion was untimely). The government can forfeit its defense of untimeliness if it fails to raise the 

defense before the district court reaches the merits of the Rule 33 

motion. See Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 17-19. 

To merit a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, 

the defendant must show that: (1) the evidence was discovered following trial, (2) the defendant exercised due care to discover the 

evidence, (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching,

(4) the evidence is material, and (5) the evidence is of such nature 

that a new trial would probably produce a different result. United 

States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267, 1273 (11th Cir. 1995). “The failure to 

satisfy any one of these elements is fatal to a motion for new trial.” 

Id. at 1274. Newly discovered evidence “may be probative of another issue of law,” but does not need to directly relate to the defendant’s guilt or innocence to justify a new trial. Campa, 459 F.3d 

at 1151 (quotation marks omitted) (explaining that a Brady violation or questions of the impartiality of the jury may justify a new 

trial).

Here, the district court properly found that the motion for 

new trial was untimely. It did not present any new evidence so it 

did not qualify for the larger timeframe in which to file. Instead, a 

motion such as the one Gonzalez filed should have been filed 

within two weeks of July 27, 2021—the date he was convicted—

and as such was over two years late. Because the filing was untimely, it does not fall within the exception found in Rule 37(a) for 

USCA11 Case: 24-11757 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 4 of 5
24-11757 Opinion of the Court 5

motions filed when an appeal is docketed and pending. Therefore, 

the district court lacked jurisdiction and should have dismissed the 

motion. We vacate and remand for the district court to dismiss the 

motion.

VACATED and REMANDED. 

USCA11 Case: 24-11757 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2024 Page: 5 of 5