Opinion ID: 217289
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Veracity

Text: Boling argues he was denied a fair trial because he was convicted based on evidencethat of his status as a potential career offenderthat was discovered after trial to be inaccurate. But before he can make this argument on appeal, he must have made it to the district court. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 33; United States v. Ogle, 425 F.3d 471, 476 (7th Cir.2005) (refusing to consider claim, unsupported by newly discovered evidence, that government introduced false testimony because it was not included in a timely motion for a new trial); United States v. Higham, 98 F.3d 285, 293 (7th Cir.1996) (concluding that the question of whether newly discovered evidence entitled defendant to a new trial is one addressed to the district court's discretion, in the first instance). Boling did move for a new trial, but his motion did not refer to any false testimony or evidence. We decline to consider his argument for the first time on appeal.