N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SAM UEL C OHEN, a . k.a . M OULI C OHEN, De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10274

D.C . No. 3:10-c r-00547-C RB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 10, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E and M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a n d ERIC KSON, *** Distric t Judge . 

# F IL ED MAR 29 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. R . 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R a lph R . Eric kson, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judgefor the Distric t of North Da

kota , sitting by

de signa tion.Sam

ue l C ohe n a

ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his motion for a ne wtria l pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 33 a nd the orde r de ny ing his third m

otion to c o ntinuethe e vide ntia ry he a ring to allow him

furthe r tim e to unc ove r “ ne wly

disc ove re d” e vide nc e . W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing C o he n’ s m o tion for a ne wtria l, ba se d on a

n a lle gation of ne wly disc o ve re d e vide nc e . The tria l c ourt c orre c tly ide ntifie d a

nd a pplie d the c ontrolling la

win a na ly z ing theque stions pre s e nte d. Unite d State

s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th C ir. 2009). The re is no a buse of disc re tion in the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t C ohe n fa ile d to produc e any a dm issiblene w ly

disc ove re d e vide nc e . U

n ite d State

s v . K e n ny , 645 F.2d 1323, 1343 (9th C ir. 1981). M ore ove r, the ne wly

disc ove re d e v ide nc e upon whic h C ohe n ba s e s his m otion c o nsists of me re l y c um ulative im pe a c hing e vide nc e that

wa s ne i the r suffic i e nt to c re ate a l ike lihood of a diffe re nt tria l outc om e nor substa ntia l e nough to unde rm ine c onfide nc e in theoutc om e of the origina l tria l. Smith v . C a in , 132 S. C t. 627, 630 (2012) (c iting K y le s v . W hitle y , 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995)); ac c ord Unite d State s v . Dav is , 960 F.2d 820, 826 (9th C i r. 1992) (“ The re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e to c onvic t Da

vis, without Dura

n’ s te stim ony .” ). 2C ohe n a lso c ha lle n ge s the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his third m otion to c ontinuethe e vide ntia

ry he aring on them otion for a ne w tria l. The de nia l wa s not arbitra ry or unre a sona

ble , Unite d State

s v . Fly nt , 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th C ir. 1985), or pre

j udic ia l. Unite d State

s v . Riv e ra-Gue rre ro , 426 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th C ir. 2005). The distric t c ourt c orre c t ly de t e rm ine d tha

t e v e n if C ohe n we re to unc ove r the “ ne wly

disc o v e re d” e vide nc e he wa s se e king, it would still be c um ulat ive in na

ture , m e re ly

im pe a c hing, a

nd like ly ina d m issible . C ohe n’ s two m otions for le ave to supple m e nt the re c ord on a ppe a l a re a lso de nie d. The e vide nc e , c onsisting of a re port by Profe ssor Ste rling Ha

rwood, a nd de c la rations m a d e subse que nt to thedistric t c ourt’ s he aring on them otion for a ne w tria l, is c um

ulative and, a

t be st, im pe a c hing. C ohe n ha s not provide d this c ourt with suffic ie nt re a s ons for de v iating from the re quire m e nts of Fe de ra l R ule of Appe lla

te Proc e dure 10(a ). Se eUnite d State s v . Boulw a re , 558 F.3d 971, 976 (9th C ir. 2009) (re c ogniz ing tha t “ e xc e pt in e x tra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s” the c ourt

“ will not allow pa

rtie s to supplem e nt the re c ord on a p pe a l” ); Low ry

v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ Save in unusual c i rc um sta nc e s, we c onside r only the distric t c ourt re c ord on a ppe a l.” ). The Gove rnm e nt’ s m otions to strike are de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D. 3