U.S. v. Meyers

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troiani MEYERS, a/k/a…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jun 3, 2008

279 F. App'x 194 (4th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-5043.

Submitted: May 29, 2008.

Decided: June 3, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00131-REP).

Michael T. Hemenway, The Law Offices of Michael T. Hemenway, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Troiani Meyers was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of distribution of marijuana within 1000 feet of a university. Prior to sentencing, Meyers filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial based on his claims that the government failed to provide exculpatory and impeachment materials. The district court denied the motion, finding that it was not filed within seven days after the guilty verdict, Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c), 33(b)(2), and that Meyers' motion was not based on newly discovered evidence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b)(1). The district court then imposed a sentence of twelve months plus one day on each count, to run concurrent with each other. Meyers appeals, contending that the district court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict or for a new trial.

We have reviewed the record included on appeal and the parties' briefs and have found no reversible error. See Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 420, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996) (holding that deadlines for filing post-judgment motions are strictly construed). We therefore affirm the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, Meyers' conviction is also affirmed. 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.