Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darren L. REAGAN, also known as Dr. Darren L. Reagan, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-02
Citations: 592 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 14-10532
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darren L. REAGAN, also known as Dr. Darren L. Reagan, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 592
Pages: 307–307

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darren L. REAGAN, also known as Dr. Darren L. Reagan, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10532
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 2, 2015.
Darren L. Reagan, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Before KING, JOLLY, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darren L. Reagan, federal prisoner # 37109-177, appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33; he also appeals the denials of related motions to expedite proceedings, for appointment of a special prosecutor, for appointment of counsel, to recuse the trial judge, and for discovery. This court reviews the district court's denial of Reagan's motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Piazza, 647 F.3d 559, 564 (5th Cir.2011). "Generally, motions for new trial are disfavored and must be reviewed with great caution." Id. at 565. Reagan has not shown that the evidence he relies upon is noncumulative, material, or would likely result in his acquittal if introduced at a new trial. See id. Consequently, he fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 33 motion. Id. at 564. As all of Reagan's remaining motions are contingent upon his litigating his motion for a new trial, the district court likewise did not err by denying them.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.