FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 03 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 7- cr-8 01 14 -DTKH-2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us PAULO HENRIQUE HILEL, a.k .a. Lil it o, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 7 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:In Uni te d Sta tes v. Hi le l , 35 3 F ed .App x. 3 78 (11 Cir . 20 09 ), we affi rm ed th Pau lo Henr ique Hil el ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e fo r co ns pi racy to c omm itali en sm ug gl in g, i n v io la ti on of 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a)(1 )(A)(v )(I). In May 201 0, Hi le l
m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt fo r a n ew tr ia l p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 3 b as edon ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce. The ne wly di sc ov ered
ev id en ce co ns is te d o f de cl arat io ns m ad e b y two in di vi du al s, Ad en ir d e So uz a an d Mar co s De As si s, n otin th e Uni te d S ta te s, wh o p art ic ip at edat s om e ti m e inali en sm ug gl in g a ct iv it ie s wi th Hil el . Bot h d ecl aran ts ex on erat edHil el of a ny in vo lv em en t i n t he co ns pi racy for wh ic h h e h adbe enco nv ic te d. Th e d is tri ctco urt de ni edhi s m ot io n o n t hr ee g ro un ds : (1 ) Hil el fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atde cl arat io ns of So uz a an d As si s co ns ti tu te d n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce; (2) Hil el fai le d t o de m on st rat e th e d ecl arat io ns ’ st at em en ts were m or e th anim pe ach in g e vi de nc e; an d (3 ) Hil el fai le d t o e st ab li sh th athe co ul d n otha ve ob ta in edth e st at em en ts be fo re tria l i n t he ex erci se of due di li ge nc e. Hil el no w app eal s the co urt’s ru li ng , pr es en ti ng two arg um en ts . Hil el arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n two re sp ect s: (1) in de nyin g h is m ot io n b ecau se th e d ecl arat io ns sh owe d tha t t he Gov ern m en t vi ol at ed Bra dyv. Mar

ylan d , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S .Ct. 1 19 4, 1 0 L.Ed .2d21 5 (1 96 3) , Kyl es v. W

hi tl ey , 51 4 U.S. 4 19 , 11 5 S .Ct. 1 55 5, 1 31 L.Ed.2d49 0 (1 99 5) , and
2Gig li o v . Uni te d Sta tes , 40 5 U.S. 1 50 , 92 S.Ct . 76 3, 3 1 L.Ed .2d10 4 (1 97 2) , and

(2 ) in rul in g wi th ou t h ol di ng anev id en ti ary he ari ng . W e n eedno t re ach th e qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e Gov ern m en t v io la te d Bra dy, Kyl es , or Gig li o , bec au se So uz a’s an d As si s’s d ecl arat io ns di d n otco ns ti tu te ev id en ce, m uc h l es s n ewly di sc ov eredev id en ce. Ru le 33 pro vi de s tha t a “ co urt m ay va cat e an y

jud gm en t an d g ran t a n ew tri al if t he in te res t o f jus ti ce s o re qu ire s.” Fe d. R. C rim. P. 33 (a). To s uc ceedon a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve red ev id en ce, the m ov an t m

us t es tabl is h t ha t (1 ) th e ev id en ce was di sc ov eredaft er tria l, (2 ) th e fai lu re o f th e d efen da ntto di sc ov er the ev id en ce was no t due to a la ckof due di li ge nc e, (3 ) th e ev id en ce i s no t m erel y

cum ul at iv e o r im

pe ach in g, (4 ) th e ev id en ce i s m at eri al to is su es be fo re the co urt, an d (5 ) th e ev id en ce i s s uc h t ha t a n ew tr ia l wou ldpro babl y

pro du ce a d iff

eren t re su lt
. Uni te d Sta tes v. J

erni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Newly

di sc ov eredev id en ce d oe s n otin cl ud e ev id en ce t ha t wo ul d b e in adm is si bl e attri al
. Jerni ga n , 34 1 F .3dat 1 28 8- 12 89 (affi rm in g t he de ni al of a
m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b ecau se th e ev id en ce o ffer edwas n otadm is si bl e u nd er Fe d. R. Evi d. 8 04 (b )(3 ), an d t hu s, wo ul d n othave pro du ceda di ffer en t re su ltat tria l). The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y he ldth atth e d ecl arat io ns Hil el pre se nt edwith hi s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al do no t co ns ti tu te ev id en ce tha t wo ul d b e ad m is si bl e ata

3ret ria l o f Hil el ’s cas e. In h is de cl arat io n, So uz a m erel y st at es , witho utpro vi di ng 1
an y ex pl an at io n o r supp ort, tha t “ Pau lo Henr ique Hil el ha d n o i nv ol ve m en t i n a ny al ie n s m ug gl in g v en tu re tha t was happ en in g abo ut[si c] or b efo re J un e 4 , 20 07 .” Ass is , an i nd ic te d c o- co ns pi rat or , inhi s d ecl arat io n, m erel y st at es th at“ Mr. Paul o Hen rique Sel em e Hil el , arres te d i n Au gu st , 20 08 , Cas e # 07 /C R/ 81 14 /DTKH/2 , ha d n o c on ne ct io n wi th th e fac t [s ic ]. ” W e as su m e th at“ no co nn ect io n” m ean s n o in vo lv em en t i n t he co ns pi racy for wh ic h Hi le l was co nv ic te d. Nei th er So uz a n or Ass is ex pl ai ns ho w th ey

kn ew th atHil el was n otin vo lv edin th e Ju ne 4, 2 00 7
sm ug gl in g t rip , no r do es eit he r po in t t o a ny evi de nc e to supp ort the ir s ta te m en t cl ai m . Inth atne ithe r de cl arat io n c on st itut es adm is si bl e ev id en ce, an d thu s re qu ire d th e d is tri ctco urt t o d en y

Ru le 33 rel ie f, we do no t re ach th e que st io n o f whe th er th e Gov ern m en t s om eh ow v io la te d Bra dy, Kyl es , or Gig li o . AFFIR MED.

The c ourt did not need to hold an e videntiary hearing to r eac h this holdi ng . Henc e, 1 Hilel’s sec ond argument for r ever sal fails. 4