1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

ALBERT T. ROBLES, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50133

D.C. No. 2:04-cr-1594-SVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 2, 2017

Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE, District Judge.

**

Defendant-Appellant Albert Robles (“Robles”) appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, motion for 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for 

the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

reconsideration. We review both denials for an abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (motion for a new 

trial based on newly discovered evidence); United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 

803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (motion for reconsideration). We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. “Any motion for a new trial grounded on newly discovered evidence 

must be filed within 3 years after the verdict or finding of guilty.” Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 33(b)(1). Although the time bar is not jurisdictional, the rule “assure[s] relief to 

a party properly raising [it].” Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005). 

The Government properly raised the time bar and is entitled to such relief because 

Robles filed his motion more than three years after the verdict. Therefore, the 

district court properly denied Robles’s motion for a new trial based on newly 

discovered evidence.

2. The district court denied Robles’s motion for reconsideration after 

finding that Robles was not diligent in presenting the evidence and that the 

evidence was “newly available” instead of “newly discovered.” Robles fails to 

show any error in either of these findings, much less an abuse of discretion. 

Therefore, the district court properly denied Robles’s motion for reconsideration. 
3

3. Even if we reached the merits of Robles’s motion, Robles fails to show 

that he is entitled to relief. In United States v. Garrido, 713 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 

2013), this court established the law of the case by affirming Robles’s conviction 

for bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666. A three-judge panel is bound by the 

prior authority unless “the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is 

clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority.” 

Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). On the 

interpretation of § 666, Garrido is not clearly irreconcilable with either 

McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (2014), or McDonnell v. 

United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), because these intervening higher authorities 

addressed the interpretation of statutes other than § 666.

AFFIRMED.