Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10307 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. D A N IE L A . F IS H E R , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 04- C R

- 172- 1
B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D ef endant

- A ppel l antD ani elA
. Fi she r , fed eralpr i so ner# 32 412- 177, appeal s t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof hi s m ot i on f

ora new tr i al
. H e ass er t s t hat th e d i stri ct cou rt fa i l ed to con d u ct t h e n ece ssa ryde n ov o rev i ew of h i s ar gu m en ts a n dd i d n o t p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e c l a i ms t h a t h e r a i s e d i n t h e mo t i o n . He al l e ge s t hatt he di sreg ar de d c l ai m s , w hi c h a ppe ari n hi s t r av e r s e t o t he go ve r nm e nt ’ s r e s po ns e t o hi s m o t i o n f o rane w t r i ala n d h i s objec t i o ns t o t he
m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s (M J ’ s ) r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a tio n , w e r e s u p p o r te db yn e w ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 3, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-10307 Document: 00511019361 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 08- 10307

2 di s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d h i s e n t i t l e m e n t t o a n e w t r i al
. The gov er nm ent has f

i l ed a m ot i on f

ors um m ar y af

f i r m ance or , al t er nat ively, f oran extensi on of

t i m e t o f

i l e a bri ef

on the m eri t s. F ish e r’s m ot i on t o f i l e a s u p p l e me n t a lb r i e f

i s GRANT ED
. Fi s he r ’ s c o nt e nt i o n t hatt he di s t r i c tcour tfail e d t o c o nduc tapr o pe rde n o v o re v ie w o f c la im s is n o t s u p p o r te db yt h e r e c o r d
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p lic itly st at ed i n i t s or deradopt i ng t he M J’ s r epo r tthati t s c onc l usi on w as bas ed o n an i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he pl e ad i ngs , f

i l e s , and r e c o r ds i n t hi s c as e , a s w e l la s t he fin d in g s , co n c lu s io n s , a n dre c o m m e n d a ti on s of th e M J
. S ee 28 U
. S. C
. § 636(b) ( 1) ; S h i i miv . A s h e r t o n I

. S
. D. , 983 F
. 2d 233 , 233 n. 18 (5t h C i r. 199 3)
. Fis h er has al so fail e d t o e s t ab l i s h t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tw as i nc ap ab l e o f c o nduc t i ng a pr o pe rde n ovo revi ew becau se itdi d n oth ave av ai l able t o ital lof t h e docum en t s t h at w ere r e l e va ntt o hi s c l ai m s . Fi s he rdo e s no ti de nt i f y anys pe c i f

i c do c um e nt s t hatt he c o urtd i d n otha ve a c c e s s t o o ro ve r l o o ke d i n i t s i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he
r e c o r d , a n d h e fa ils to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e a lle g e d lyo m itt e dd o c u m e n ts w o u ld h a v e a lte r e dth e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is p o s itio n o f h is m o tio n . F i sh er h a s also fail ed to estab l i sh tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt a b u sed i ts d is c r e tio n in d e n y in gh is m o ti o n fo ran e w tr ia l. Uni t e d St at e s v . Fr e e m an , 77 F
. 3d 812 , 817 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) (noti n g t h at denialof a m ot i on f

or a new t ri albased on new l y di scovered evi den ce i s r eversed only w h en t h e re is a c l ear abu se of di s c r e t i o n)
. H e ha s no tc l e ar l y s ho w n t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tfail e d t o c o ns i de rt he a rg u m en ts t h a t he ra i sed in h i s trav erse a n dh i s ob j ection s to the M J ’ s rep ort. M o r e o ve r , t h e cl ai m s pu rport edl y di sregarded b y t h e di st ri ctcourtdo n otpr o vi de a bas i s f ora new t r i al
. Those c l ai m s pri nci pal l y c onc er n al l ege d m i sc onductt hat occurred att ri al , bu tF i sher ha s n o tshow n t h at t h e cl ai m s are prem i sed on
m at eri al , ne w l y di s c o ve r e d e vi de nc e t hathe c o ul d no tpr e vi o us l y hav e f o und th r o u g h th e e x e r c is e o f d ilig e n c e . S eeid .; cf. Uni t e d St at e s v . U ga l de , 861 F. 2d 802, 808 ( 5t h C i r . 1988) (i dent i f yi ng t hatnew ly di sc ove r ed e vi denc e m ustbe u n k n o w n to th e d e fen d a n t a t th e tim e of tria l); Un itedS ta tes v. J a ra m illo , 42 Case: 08-10307 Document: 00511019361 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010N o. 08- 10307

3 F. 3d9 20 , 9 25 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5) (ho l di ng t hate vi de nc e i s no t“ ne w l y di scovered” w h ere a d efen d a n t i s i n po sse ssion o f ev i d en ce b efore tri a lbu t fa i l s to rea l i ze i ts re lev a n ce ). A c c or di ngl y, t he d i st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof Fi she r ’ s m ot i on f

ora new t r i al w as no ta n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n, a nd t he j udg m e nti s A FFI RM ED ; t he g o v e r n m e n t ’s m o t io n fo rs u m m a r ya ff ir m a n c e i s G R A N T E D ; t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’s
m ot i ons t o di sm i ss and f oran ex t ens i on o f

t i m e a r e D E N I E D as unn ec es sa r y; Fi s he r ’ s m o t i o ns f

or a l i m i t e d r e m and , f o rr e l e as e pe ndi ng ap pe al , a nd f o rt he ap poi n t m en tof

coun selare D E N IE D
. Fu rt h er, F i sher i s c au t i on ed that hi s use of abu sive an d in su lti n glangu age d i rect ed at t h e di st ri ctj u dg e are i m proper, ands i m i l arl ang uag e a nd a c c usat i on s i n f ut ur e f i l i ngs w i l lr e s ul ti n t he im p o s itio n o f s a n c tio n s . S ee T h eri au l tv. S i l ber , 579 F
. 2d 302 , 303 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ). Case: 08-10307 Document: 00511019361 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/03/2010