Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael R. STEIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-11
Citations: 269 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 06-30394
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael R. STEIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 696–697

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael R. STEIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30394.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 26, 2008 .
Filed March 11, 2008.
Karen L. Loeffler, USAK — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joe P. Josephson, Josephson and Associates, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael R. Stein appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial because Stein has not shown that the evidence at issue was newly-discovered. See United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1507 (9th Cir.1995). We also conclude that the district court did not err by denying Stein's motion prior to his filing of a reply, because under the District Court of Alaska's Local Criminal Rule 47.1(c), a reply is generally not permitted in criminal motion practice. See Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir.1983) (recognizing that district courts have broad discretion in interpreting and applying their local rules).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.