United States v. Meyers , 279 F. App'x 194 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TROIANI MEYERS, a/k/a Troy,
Defendant - Appellant.
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)
Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 3, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 United
States v. Carlisle, 517 U.S. 416, 420 (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
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -