United States v. Orr, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18539

Orr, a self-taught inventor, formed Octane International in 1991 and raised over $1.3 million from investors through 2002 for his fuel additive ventures.
Orr created NAFF to obtain EPA funding for a congressional earmark of over $3.6 million; NAFF was registered as a Colorado nonprofit to manage the funds.
From 1992 to 2004, Orr and associates conducted and supervised multiple fuel tests, some data later shown to be incorrect or misleading.
The EPA suspended and eventually canceled grant disbursements in 2004–2005 amid audit concerns about expenditures, procurement, and potential conflicts of interest.
Orr was indicted in 2006 on counts of wire and mail fraud, making false statements, and tax evasion; conviction followed after an eight-week trial.
On appeal, Orr challenged (1) lay/experimental testimony, (2) exclusion of defense witnesses, (3) government non-expert testimony, (4) new-trial based on newly discovered evidence, and (5) continuance denials; the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether non-expert test witnesses provided improper expert testimony	Orr argues non-experts offered implied expert opinions without Rule 702 qualifications.	The government contends testimony was properly constrained and admissible as lay testimony.	No reversible error; testimony properly controlled and non-prejudicial.
Whether exclusion of defense expert witnesses violated Orr's rights	Orr claims exclusion and failure to subpoena deprived defense of evidence.	Court carefully gatekept experts and properly excluded unreliable testimony.	No reversible error; gatekeeping and exclusions were within discretion.
Whether government misconduct in handling non-expert testimony denied fair trial	Orr asserts improper questioning and closing arguments misled the jury.	Prosecutorial questions and arguments were within permissible boundaries and, where erroneous, harmless.	Harmless error; no reversal based on misconduct.
Whether denial of newly discovered-evidence claims requires a new trial	Orr contends witnesses like O'Riordan and others would have changed outcome.	District court properly evaluated novelty, cumulative value, and likelihood of acquittal.	No abuse of discretion; no required new trial.
Whether denial of pre-trial continuance was an abuse of discretion	Complexity and ongoing disputes warranted more time for trial readiness.	The court balanced Rivera factors and found prejudice to others outweighed delay.	No abuse; continuance denied.

Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir.1999) (general evidentiary rulings; Rule 702 gatekeeping)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court 1984) (trial record context for reviewing obscured rulings)
United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (Supreme Court 1983) (harmless-error review in criminal trials)
United States v. Kaufman, 546 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir.2008) (plain-error standard and review for non-constitutional errors)
Rivera v. United States (en banc discussion cited), 900 F.2d 1462 (10th Cir.1990) (Rivera continuance factors (Rivera factors) for continuance rulings)