Opinion ID: 776136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Hough's Motion for a New Trial

Text: 76 Hough argues that the district court should have granted him a new trial. We review denial of a motion for a new trial under the abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Pierce, 62 F.3d 818, 824 (6th Cir. 1995). 77 Hough argues that this court's vacatur of the conspiracy count in Gibbs qualifies as new evidence requiring a new trial. This argument cannot be seriously entertained. It is patently absurd to regard disposition on direct appeal as new evidence that would justify a new trial. 9 In the absence of new evidence, Defendant had seven days from verdict to file a motion for a new trial. He failed to do so. Failure to do so deprives the district court of jurisdiction to even consider the motion. United States v. Koeheler, 24 F.3d 867, 869 (6th Cir. 1994). 78 Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err by denying Hough's request for a new trial.