United States v. Henderson , 257 F. App'x 618 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-8048
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAMONT HENDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (8:03-cr-00614-HMH)
Submitted: September 21, 2007 Decided: December 14, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lamont Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lamont Henderson appeals the district court’s oral order
denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Henderson argues he has newly discovered evidence to
justify a new trial. He claims the Government failed to
acknowledge there was an immunity agreement in the case and the
court failed to disclose grand jury testimony. However, Henderson
cannot demonstrate that any of his claims constitute newly
discovered evidence. Henderson also objects to the form of the
district court’s oral order. Based on our review of the record, we
find no evidence that Henderson was prejudiced by either an oral
ruling on his motion or the district court’s entry of a “docket
text order” denying his motion. Cf. Blanco de Belbruno v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying
Henderson’s motion for a new trial. We also deny Henderson’s
motion for summary judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -