The Honor able De nny Chin, United St ates District Judge f or the Southern District of * New Y ork, sitting by

desig nation. 08-5920-c r USA v. Hy sko (Muja) U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER Ru lings by summary orde r d o n ot h ave prece den tial eff ect. Citatio n to a summary orde r f iled on o r after Janu ary 1, 2007 , is permitted and is g overn ed by Federal R ule o f A ppe llate Proced ure 32. 1 a nd this c ourt’s Loc al R ule 3 2.1 .1. Whe n c iting a su mmary ord e r i n a do c um e nt filed w ith th is cou rt, a partymust cite either the F edera l Appen dixor an electron ic databa se (w ith th e n otation “su mmary orde r”). A partycitinga summary orde r must serve a copy o f it o n a ny partyno t rep resen ted by co u n se l. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, at 500 Pea rl Street, in the City

of Ne w York, on the 11 day

of F ebrua

ry , two thousand ten. th P r e s e n t : G U ID O C A LA B R E S I,

ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges , DENNYCHI

N, District Judge. *

____________________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Appellee , - v - No. 08-5920-c r ASL L AN MUJA, also known as OZ , also known as OZ Y, Defendant-

Appellant
.

____________________________________________________________ F or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt: RANDA D. M AHER , Gre at Nec k, N.Y. For Appellee : A M I R H. T O O SSI , Assistant United States Attorney (Emily Be rg er, A ssistant United St ates Attorney , on the brief

), for B e nto n J. Campb e ll, United States Attorney

for the E astern D istrict of Ne w York, B rookly

n, N.Y.2

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York (Ga rauf is, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Def endant- appellant Asllan Muja a ppeals fr om a September

16, 2008 Orde r of the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k (Ga rauf is, J. ) deny

ing Muja ’s motion fo r a ne w tri a l pu

rs ua nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of

Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure 33 . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history

of this case , and the spe cification of iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. Rule 33 permits a district court to “va cate any judgme nt and g rant a

new tria l if the interest of justice so r equire s.” F ed. R. Crim. P. 33. W here , as her e, a de fenda nt moves for a
ne w tri a l ba se d o n n e wl y

dis c ov e re d e vid e nc e , a

de fe nd ant m

us t sh ow“ that th e e vid e nc e c ou ld
no t w ithdu e dil ig e nc e have be e n d isc ov e re d b e fo re or duri ngtr ia l, t

hat th e e vid e nc e is m ate ri a l, not cumulative, and that a dmission of the evidence would probably lead to an a cquittal.” United Sta te s v . A le ssi , 638 F.2d 466, 479 ( 2d Cir. 1980). District courts “ must ex erc ise the Rule 33 authority sparing ly and in the most ext raor dinary circ umstances,” United States v. Fe rguson , 246 F.3d 129, 134 ( 2d Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted), a nd we r eview a

district court’s de cision to exercise that author ity

for a buse of discr etion. Un ite d S tates v . P olo uiz

zi , 564 F.3d 142, 159 (2d Cir. 2009). The “ newly

discovere d evidenc e” that forms the basis of Muja’ s motion for a newtrial consists of an af

fidavit submitted by

co-c onspirator Ta

ulant Hy sko, aver

ringthat he (H y sko) met Muja for the first time in J une 2002 at the F eder al Corre ctional Institut ion in Otisvi lle, New York. Muja a

rgues that this evidence compels a ne w trial, bec ause it contra dicts a testifying witness’s testimony

and under

mines the g overnme nt’s overa ll theory of the c ase.3

As the dis tr ic t c ourt

he ld, ho we ve r, thi s e vid e nc e c ann ot b e c on sid e re d “ ne wl y discovere d” evide nce w ithin the meaningof Rule 33 bec ause Muja ha d the “same awa rene ss” as Hy sko that the two had ne ver me t. I ndeed, it is now we ll settled that “[o] ne does not ‘disc over’
e vid e nc e a ft e r t

ri a l th at on e wa s aware of prior to trial.” United States v. Owen , 500 F.3d 83, 89- 90 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ) ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . T hu s, wh e re , a s h e re , “ a de fe nd ant k

ne w o r s ho uld have known that his codefe ndant could off er material testimony

as to the def

endant’ s role in the char g ed cr ime, his inabilit y to procure that testimony befor e or dur ing tr ial should not be
re dr e sse d b y

g ra nti ngthe de fe nd ant a

ne w tri a l w he n th e c od e fe nd ant a sse rt s h is w ill ingne ss t o exculpate the def

endant a fter the orig inal trial is over.” Id. at 92. Although Muja

argues that there is no basis upon which to conclude that Hy sko’s statement wa s available befor e or dur ing Muja ’s trial, Muja plainly was a war e (or should have been a war e) that Hy sko was an indicte d co-c onspirator, a nd that he (Muja) did not know Hy sko duri ngthe pe nd e nc y

of the c ha rg e d c on sp ir a c y , th

us de mon str atin gthat th e fa c ts c on ta ine d in Hy sk o’ s a ff

ida vit we re no t in

any wa y “ ne wl y dis c ov e re d. ” Mu

ja a lso c on te nd s th at be c a

us e Hy sk o w a s r e pr e se nte d b y c ouns e l and

de ta ine d in

a se pa rate fa c ili ty , n e ith e r M uja no r h is attorney could have obtained Hy sko’s statement with due dilig ence . I t is well established, ho we ve r, that a

c o- de fe nd ant’ s me re un ava ila bil ity c ann ot t ra ns fo rm e vid e nc e that “ e xiste d a ll along ” into “new ly

discovere d” evide nce. United States v. J acobs , 475 F.2d 270, 286 n.33 ( 2d Cir. 1973) (F riendly , J. ); see Owen , 500 F.3d at 89. Nor ha s Muja demonstrated that the evidenc e in question is material, non-c umulative, and would likely

result in an ac quittal. United States v. Gallego , 191 F.3d 156, 161 ( 2d Cir. 1999), abrogated on other grounds by Crawford v. W ashington , 5 4 1 U
. S
. 3 6 ( 2 0 0 4 )
. T o th e c o n tr ar y, Hy sko’s aff

idavit does not aff

irmatively

exculpate Muja, but instead mer ely aver s that the two4

did no t me e t until June 20 02 . T his fa c t ha s li ttl e (i f a ny ) b e ari ngon

the c on sp ir a c y

c ha rg e s, be c a us e the g ov e rnme nt w a s n ot r e qu ir e d to “ pr ov e that th e de fe nd ant k ne w the ide nti tie s o f a ll of the other

conspirator s.” Un ite d S

tates v . H ue zo , 546 F.3d 174, 180 ( 2d Cir. 2008). Muja’s relationship (or lack ther eof) with Hy sko likewise bea rs little releva

nce to the substantive c harg es br ou g ht a g a ins t hi m. M or e ov e r, a lth ou g h M uja c on te nd s th at H y sk o’ s st ate me nt c a lls int o qu e sti on the re lia bil ity and tr uth fu lne ss o f o ne of

the g ov e rnme nt’ s te sti fy

ingwi tne sse s, at be st, such evide nce me rely

would have g iven def

ense c ounsel an a dditional gr ound for impea chment. B e c a us e “ ne w i mpe a c hme nt e vid e nc e is not mate ri a l, a

nd thu s a ne w tri a l is not

require d when the suppresse d impeachme nt evidence mere ly furnishes a

n additional basis on which to impeac h a witness whose cre dibilit y has alre ady

been shown to be questionable,” United States v. W ong , 78 F.3d 73, 79 ( 2d Cir. 1996) (empha sis in original) ( quotation marks omitted), Hy sko’s statement ca

nnot form a va lid basis for the g rant of a new tria l under Rule 33. In short, beca

use the e vidence in question here w as not “ne wly discovere d” within the meaningof Rule 33, and be cause , in any event, Muja ha s failed to demonstrate that the evide nce is material, not cumulative, a nd that admission of the evidenc e would likely lead to ac quittal, we aff irm the district court’s de nial of Muja’s motion. We h ave c on sid e re d a ll o f M uja ’s re ma ini ngargume nts , in c lud ingtho se ma de in h is pr o
sesubmissi on, and find them to be w ithout merit. According ly , for the f oreg oing r easons, the
o r d e r o f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERI

NE O' HAGANWOL FE, CL ERK