United States of America v. SANTOS PETER MURILLO, AKA Peter Santos Murillo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SANTOS PETER MURILLO, AKA Peter
Santos Murillo,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-35929
D.C. Nos. 2:20-cv-00484-JLR
2:16-cr-00113-JLR-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Santos Peter Murrillo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33,
based on newly discovered evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for abuse of discretion, United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1259
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35929
(9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
After Murillo’s conviction, he moved for a new trial based on newly
discovered evidence regarding disciplinary actions and criminal charges against a
testifying officer involving the use of force. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that this evidence was not material to the issues raised at
trial, would have been merely impeaching, and would not have resulted in an
acquittal. See United States v. Harrington, 410 F.3d 598, 601 (9th Cir. 2005)
(setting forth five-part test that defendant must satisfy to prevail on a Rule 33
motion).
We do not address Murillo’s contentions that the government violated Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or that the weapon found in his car was not “in
plain view,” because they are beyond the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --