United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1975

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Douglas Marcel Meeks

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: January 17, 2014

 Filed: February 10, 2014

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

____________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Douglas Meeks was convicted of conspiracy to distribute at least fifty grams

of cocaine base and distribution of at least five grams of cocaine base. After

exhausting his appeals, Meeks filed a motion for new trial, arguing a new trial is
warranted because a government witness committed perjury. The district court1

denied the motion. We affirm.

I

Douglas Meeks was indicted and convicted of conspiracy to distribute at least

fifty grams of cocaine base and distribution of at least five grams of cocaine base.

At trial, the government put on evidence overwhelmingly showing Meeks was

guilty of the offenses of conviction. As relevant to this appeal, during the jury trial,

Cardale Smith testified for the government concerning a controlled buy of cocaine

base from Meeks. Smith testified he had contacted the police, admitted he bought

drugs from Meeks, and offered to conduct a controlled buy. At trial, Smith denied

selling drugs during the time frame of the trial, but admitted to purchasing crack

cocaine in amounts up to a half-ounce and selling crack cocaine prior to the controlled

buy from Meeks. During cross-examination, Smith was impeached when he admitted

past purchases of crack cocaine, admitted he hoped cooperation meant he would not

face criminal charges, and admitted he had a degree of bias against Meeks because of

prior overlapping girlfriends. Smith also testified he had agreed to cooperate in order

to help his father, who was under investigation for drug crimes. Smith's testimony

regarding the controlled buy was bolstered by the testimony of Monique Nicholson

who also participated in the controlled buy.

The jury found Meeks guilty of conspiracy to distribute at least fifty grams of

cocaine base and distribution of at least five grams of cocaine base. The district court

found Meeks had two prior felony drug convictions and sentenced Meeks to a

mandatory term of life imprisonment on the conspiracy count and a concurrent term

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Court for the Southern

District of Iowa.

-2-
of 360 months on the individual distribution count. Meeks filed a timely appeal and

this Court affirmed the conviction. United States v. Meeks, 639 F.3d 522 (8th Cir.

2011).

After Meeks's trial concluded, Smith was indicted for dealing cocaine. On June

30, 2010, Smith pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least fifty grams of

cocaine base. In the factual basis of the plea agreement, Smith acknowledged the

conspiracy ran from approximately September 1, 2007, to November 21, 2009, which

included the dates of Meeks's trial.

Meeks filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b) motion for new trial based on the newlydiscovered evidence Smith had committed perjury by claiming he did not sell crack

cocaine during the time of Meeks's trial. The district court denied the motion for new

trial, concluding Smith's testimony at trial did not portray him as a person of

upstanding character, and concluding if the case were retried with the new

impeachment evidence, the new evidence could not produce an acquittal. The district

court also noted the overwhelming evidence of guilt based on the testimony of many

witnesses.

II

Meeks appeals the district court's denial of his Rule 33(b) motion for new trial.

Rule 33(b) allows district courts to vacate a conviction and grant a new trial on the

basis of newly discovered evidence. Rule 33(b) motions are disfavored and are

reviewed under the rigorous standard of a clear abuse of discretion. United States v.

Baker, 479 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir. 2007). A defendant is not entitled to a new trial

"unless the evidence weighs heavily enough against the verdict that a miscarriage of

justice may have occurred." United States v. Placensia, 352 F.3d 1157, 1162 (8th Cir.

2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

-3-
In order to receive a new trial, Meeks must show (1) the evidence was unknown

or unavailable at the time of trial; (2) Meeks was duly diligent in attempting to

uncover the evidence; (3) the newly discovered evidence is material; and (4) the newly

discovered evidence is such its emergence probably will result in an acquittal upon

retrial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b); United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849, 857 (8th

Cir. 2011).

The motion fails based on the third and fourth elements, which require Meeks

to show the newly discovered evidence is material and would result in an acquittal

upon retrial. The evidence at trial shows the evidence of Meeks's participation in the

controlled buy was overwhelming, and the value of the additional impeachment

material would be negligible at best. "[I]n order to meet the materiality requirement,

newly discovered evidence must be 'more than merely . . . impeaching." Baker, 479

F.3d at 577 (quoting United States v. Dogskin, 265 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir. 2001)). 

At trial, Smith portrayed himself as a drug user and former drug dealer and was

impeached by Meeks's counsel in various ways. The additional impeachment

evidence is not material and is insufficient to show an acquittal would be likely. See

United States v. Johnson, 450 F.3d 366, 373 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 33(b) motion where "the evidence would

serve only to impeach . . . testimony"); United States v. Hollowhorn, 523 F.3d 882,

889-90 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding allegations victim's testimony was coached served

only to impeach testimony and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion

for new trial). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Meeks's motion for a new trial.

III

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-