Eric Lee Smith v. United States - Rule 33 Motion for New Trial Denied
Summary
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia's denial of Eric Lee Smith's Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial. The court reviewed for abuse of discretion and found no basis to disturb the lower court's ruling. Smith's appeal was dismissed and the district court's order was affirmed. Smith's motion for default judgment was also denied.
What changed
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Eric Lee Smith's motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. The appellate court applied an abuse of discretion standard and found that Smith failed to meet the five-part test for newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial: the evidence must be newly discovered, show due diligence, not be cumulative or impeaching, be material, and probably result in acquittal.\n\nFor criminal defendants and practitioners, this ruling reinforces the high bar for obtaining a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Unpublished per curiam opinions are not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, limiting their precedential value but maintaining the court's established standards for Rule 33 motions.
What to do next
- Monitor for updates on related proceedings
Archived snapshot
Apr 15, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
ERIC LEE SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:21-cr-00042-RAJ-RJK-
Submitted: March 24, 2026 Decided: April 14, 2026 Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Eric Lee Smith appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a * motion for a new trial. United States v. Parker, 790 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2015). To succeed on a Rule 33 motion, a defendant must establish all of the following: "that (1) the evidence is newly discovered; (2) the defendant exercised due diligence; (3) the newly discovered evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence would probably result in acquittal at a new trial." United States v. Ali, 991 F.3d 561, 571 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Limiting our review to the issues raised in Smith's informal brief, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Smith's motion. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief."). We therefore affirm the district court's order. United States v. Smith, No. 4:21-cr- 00042-RAJ-RJK-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Smith has moved for entry of default judgment on the basis that the government * has not filed a response. Given no informal response brief is required under our Local Rule 34(b), we deny that motion. 2
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for 4th Circuit Daily Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from 4th Cir..
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when 4th Circuit Daily Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.