United States v. Houghton

MEMORANDUM** Federal prisoner Henderson Duval Houghton appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial following his jury conviction for receipt and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2) and 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Holmes, 229 F.3d 782, 789 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm. [380] The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Houghton’s motion for new trial as untimely, because the motion is not based on newly-discovered evidence and was filed more than two years after the jury’s guilty verdict. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 33(b)(2); see also United States v. Lara-Hernandez, 588 F.2d 272, 275 (9th Cir.1978) (noting the Rule 33 time limit is jurisdictional and mandatory); United States v. Shelton, 459 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir.1972) (holding that change in law is not newly discovered evidence for Rule 33 purposes). AFFIRMED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.