United States v. Antoine Norman, 458 F. App'x 105

Norman, a federal prisoner, challenged a Rule 33 motion for a new trial denied by the district court.
Norman alleged that Inspector Freeland testified inconsistently with prior grand jury testimony and trial testimony by Agent Rixham.
He claimed failure to disclose Freeland’s prior false oath violated his right to a fair trial.
District Court denied the motion on the merits, applying the Third Circuit five-factor test for Rule 33 relief.
This appeal proceeds while Norman’s direct appeal is pending; we review for abuse of discretion and summarily affirmed.
Legal standards require newly discovered, non-cumulative, material evidence likely to produce acquittal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the new evidence meets the five-factor test	Norman contends the new evidence is material and non-cumulative	Government argues the evidence is cumulative or not likely to produce acquittal	District court did not abuse discretion; five-factor test not satisfied
Whether the evidence is material and would likely lead to acquittal	New information would undermine Freeland’s reliability and defense’s cross-examination	Evidence不足 to change outcome	Evidence fails materiality and probable acquittal prongs
Whether the district court properly applied the Rule 33 standard given an appeal pending	Pending appeal should shield merits ruling from review	Rule 33 merits review may proceed even if appeal pending	Court can review merits; no error in proceeding

United States v. Silveus, 542 F.3d 993 (3d Cir. 2008) (motions for new trials are not favored and require exceptional circumstances)
United States v. Brown, 595 F.3d 498 (3d Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard and factual/legal error review)
Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review in post-conviction rulings)
United States v. Jasin, 280 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2002) (conjunctive five-prong Iannelli test for new-trial relief)
United States v. Iannelli, 528 F.2d 1292 (3d Cir. 1976) (newly discovered evidence must meet five-factor test for new trial)
United States v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 1995) (timeliness and merits considerations in post-judgment reviews)
In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573 (3d Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional issues must be decided before merits)
Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam affirmance and procedures in post-conviction review)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumption of effective assistance; limits on Rule 33 relief when appellate issues exist)
Martinez v. Government of U.S. Virgin Islands, 620 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2010) (timeliness considerations in appellate review of Rule 33 motions)