Categories: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

U.S. v. MOORE, 283 Fed.Appx. 218 (5th Cir. 2008)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noah MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30713 Conference Calendar.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Theodore Carter, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Noah Moore, Lisbon, OH, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, USDC No. 2:03-CR-282-1.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:[*]

[*] 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Noah Moore, federal prisoner # 24804-013, appeals the denial of his FED.R.CRIM.P. 33 motion for a new trial. He argues that the Government failed to disclose a tacit agreement with a testifying witness, entitling him to a new trial pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

Nondisclosure of evidence affecting the credibility of a witness whose reliability may be determinative of guilt violates Brady. United States v. Edwards, 442 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no record evidence, however, of a tacit promise made by the Government promising the witness leniency in exchange for his testimony. Consequently, Moore has not shown the existence of suppressible evidence, see id. at 266-67 United States v. Nixon, 881 F.2d 1305, 1311 (5th Cir. 1989), and, as such, has not shown an abuse of discretion on the part of the district court in denying his motion for a new trial. See United States v. Infante, 404 F.3d 376, 387 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

jdjungle