Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dragomir TASKOV, a.k.a. Drago, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-28
Citations: 616 F. App'x 347
Docket Number: No. 14-10437
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dragomir TASKOV, a.k.a. Drago, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 347–348

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dragomir TASKOV, a.k.a. Drago, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10437.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
Filed Sept. 28, 2015.
Nicholas Dana Dickinson, Assistant U.S., Adam McMeen Flake, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dragomir Taskov Post, TX, pro se.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Dragomir Taskov appeals pro se the district court's judgment denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Taskov contends that he is entitled to a new trial because he received new evidence on the fourth day of his jury trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Taskov's motion. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). Taskov failed to show that the evidence is newly discovered. See United States v, Harrington, 410 F.3d 598, 601 (9th Cir.2005).
Taskov also claims that the district court improperly denied his motion to substitute counsel, improperly denied his post-trial motion for discovery, and violated his right to a speedy trial. We decline to consider these arguments, which Taskov raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.