Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nasrin SAADVANDI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-03
Citations: 60 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: No. 02-4994
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nasrin SAADVANDI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nasrin SAADVANDI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4994.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2003.
Decided April 3, 2003.
Drewry B. Hutcheson, Jr., McGinley, Elsberg & Hutcheson, P.L.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Morris R. Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Nasrin Saadvandi appeals the district court order denying her motion for a new trial. We review the denial of a motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1486 (4th Cir.1985). Under United States v. Bales, 813 F.2d 1289, 1294 (4th Cir.1987), there are five factors to review when determining whether to grant a motion for a new trial. Unless the district court finds in the affirmative for all five factors, a new trial is not warranted. United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir.1989). After reviewing the record, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.