Case: 18-13929 Date Filed: 06/26/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13929
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00149-SPC-MRM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NORRIS WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 26, 2019)
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13929 Date Filed: 06/26/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Norris Williams was convicted for several drug crimes. 1 After sentencing,
Williams made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) seeking any information related to his case. The
DEA replied to the FOIA request stating that, while it had identified records
“pertaining to the subject of [his] request,” it would not provide the information
because the information: (1) “could reasonably be expected to interfere with
enforcement proceedings”; (2) “would disclose techniques and procedures for law
enforcement investigations or prosecutions,” and “such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumnavigation of the law” or “endanger the life
or physical safety of any individual”; and (3) included “material reporting
investigative efforts.” Based on this response, Williams filed a motion for a new
trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which the district court denied.
Williams now appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by
both denying his motion and failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. He argues that
a new trial is warranted because the DEA evidence constituted new evidence and
was withheld from him in violation of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963). We
disagree and affirm.
1
A jury found Williams guilty of three counts of possessing heroin with intent to distribute under
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and one count of attempting to possess heroin with intent to
distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i) and 846.
2
Case: 18-13929 Date Filed: 06/26/2019 Page: 3 of 5
I. Rule 33 Motion
We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial—whether
based on newly discovered evidence or a Brady violation—for abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Vallejo,
297 F.3d 1154, 1163 (11th Cir. 2002).
Rule 33(b) authorizes a district court to grant a new trial based on new
evidence only if: (1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) the failure to
discover the evidence was not due to a lack of due diligence; (3) the evidence is
not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the
evidence is such that a new trial would probably produce a different result. United
States v. Jernigan,
341 F.3d 1273, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003). Motions for a new trial
based on newly discovered evidence are highly disfavored.
Id.
To get a new trial based on a Brady violation, the defendant must show that:
(1) the government possessed favorable evidence to the defendant, including
impeachment evidence; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence, and could
not have obtained the evidence with any reasonable diligence; (3) the government
suppressed the favorable evidence; and (4) had the evidence been disclosed to the
defendant, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been
different.
Vallejo, 297 F.3d at 1164.
Williams has not established that he was entitled to a new trial on either
ground. Williams’s argument that the DEA has some information that it is
3
Case: 18-13929 Date Filed: 06/26/2019 Page: 4 of 5
unwilling is overly speculative. That allegation cannot show whether the
information is (1) different than the evidence presented at trial, or (2) could have
been found during trial with diligent effort, (3) not cumulative or impeachment
evidence, (4) material, even if it pertained to his case, or (5) that it would lead to a
different trial result. See
Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1287. Williams acknowledges that
it “is unknown” whether the DEA records contain any exculpatory information. 2
Williams’s argument that he is entitled to a new hearing because the
evidence was withheld from him in violation of Brady fails for the same reason.
Even if Williams could show that the government did not provide the DEA
evidence until the DEA responded to his FOIA request, Williams does not show
that (1) the evidence would have been favorable or useful for impeachment
purposes, (2) the evidence was not already in his possession during trial or not
capable of being obtained with reasonable diligence, or (4) that there is a
reasonable probability the evidence would have changed the outcome of his case.
See
Vallejo, 297 F.3d at 1164.
Williams’s unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations that the DEA might
have some exculpatory evidence that might have made a difference in his case are
insufficient to show that he is entitled to a new trial.
2
To the extent that Williams argues that the DEA improperly withheld the records under FOIA,
his redress is through a FOIA complaint, which gives federal courts jurisdiction “to order the
production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(B).
4
Case: 18-13929 Date Filed: 06/26/2019 Page: 5 of 5
II. Evidentiary Hearing
We also review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision not to
conduct an evidentiary hearing before ruling on a motion for a new trial. United
States v. Massey,
89 F.3d 1433, 1443 (11th Cir. 1996). The “acumen gained by a
trial judge over the course of the proceedings” makes the court “well qualified” to
rule on a motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing. United States v.
Schlei,
122 F.3d 944, 994 (11th Cir. 1997). The district court is not required to
hold an evidentiary hearing when the resolution of a motion for a new trial is clear.
Jernigan, 341 F.3d at 1289; see also United States v. Scrushy,
721 F.3d 1288, 1305
n.30 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that because the “record contained all the evidence
needed to dispose of each of the grounds asserted as the basis for a new trial,” the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without an
evidentiary hearing). Williams did not establish any of the elements required for a
new trial. Because the resolution of his motion was clear from the record, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an evidentiary hearing.
See
Scrushy, 721 F.3d at 1305.
III. Conclusion
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s motion
for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5
