United States v. Millet ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30323
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LESTER J. MILLET, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CR-187-ALL-T
--------------------
October 21, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lester Millet appeals from the district court’s denial of
his motion for new trial, evidentiary hearing, and in camera
inspection of evidence. Millet’s motion stems from his 1996
conviction by jury for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951 (Hobbs
Act); § 1952 (Travel Act), and §§ 2, 1956 (money laundering).
The convictions were based on Millet’s misuse of his official
position as Parish President of St. John the Baptist Parish,
Louisiana, in persuading officials of Formosa Chemical
Corporation (Formosa) to purchase land in the parish. Millet’s
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-30323
-2-
convictions were affirmed on appeal. United States v. Millet,
123 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 1997).
Millet argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Fed.
R. Crim. P. 33 because of newly discovered evidence. Millet
contends that an official of Formosa would now testify that
Millet’s activities were not a factor in Formosa’s decision to
abandon plans to build a rayon plant in the parish, and thus
Millet’s activities did not have the requisite effect on
interstate commerce necessary to support a conviction under the
Hobbs Act. Millet also contends that the Government suppressed
this testimony in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963).
This court will reverse the denial of a motion for a new
trial only when there has been an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Pena, 949 F.2d 751, 758 (5th Cir. 1991). The district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Millet’s motion
because Millet has not shown that the evidence is in fact newly
discovered since the official in question testified at trial, nor
has Millet shown that the evidence probably would produce a
different result in a new trial. United States v. MMR Corp., 954
F.2d 1040, 1046-47 (5th Cir. 1992). Evidence is material under
Brady when there is a reasonable probability that the result of
the proceeding would have been different if the evidence had been
disclosed to the defense. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667,
682 (1985). Millet has not shown that the Government suppressed
the testimony in question or that the testimony is material Brady
evidence.
No. 99-30323
-3-
AFFIRMED.