Opinion ID: 1238393
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Newly Available Evidence

Text: Although Showalter argues the district court ignored his newly available evidence argument, he does not make clear how that argument differs from his newly discovered evidence argument. Although he presents the two arguments separately, both rely on the same witness declarations, and both are assertions that these new declarations are a fair and just reason justifying withdrawal of the guilty plea. The district court's analysis and conclusion that Showalter's proffered evidence was not new adequately resolved both contentions. The district court made a factual finding that Showalter was aware of the potential evidence[the witnesses] could supply and could have not pleaded guilty and compelled these same witnesses to testify on his behalf at trial. This finding was not clearly erroneous. Even if the district court had failed to address Showalter's newly available evidence argument, that argument is meritless because newly available evidence does not constitute newly discovered evidence justifying withdrawal of a guilty plea. See United States v. Lockett, 919 F.2d 585, 591-92 (9th Cir.1990). In Lockett, we affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where a co-defendant, who previously asserted her right not to testify, offered newly available testimony that exculpated the defendant. Id. We stated that great caution must be exercised in considering evidence newly discovered when it existed all along. Id. (citing United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270, 286 n. 33 (2d Cir.1973)).