United States v. Blohm

No. 99-10143
-1-
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10143
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEBORAH BLOHM, also known as Deborah Ragsdale,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3; 98-CR-158-1-X
--------------------
May 25, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Deborah Blohm (“Blohm”) appeals the district court’s denial
of her Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial. She argues
that the district court abused its discretion in denying her
motions for a new trial based on “newly discovered evidence” that
she was not competent to stand trial.
This court has reviewed the record and briefs submitted by
the parties. It finds that district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Blohm’s motions for a new trial based on
“newly discovered evidence” because the failure to detect the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-10143
-2-
evidence was due to her lack of diligence. See United States v.
Sullivan, 112 F.3d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United
States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 403-04 (10th Cir. 1977); United
States v. Vowteras, 500 F.2d 1210, 1212 (2d Cir. 1974).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --