Robert Peter Russell, proceeding pro se, appealed a district court order from the Eastern District of Virginia that denied his motion for a new trial. The motion was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which allows a defendant to request a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or other grounds. The underlying case originated in 1991, and the district court had previously entered an order on May 27, 2025, denying the motion. Russell sought relief from the Fourth Circuit, arguing that the district court's decision was erroneous.
The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion, meaning it was written by the court as a whole rather than a specific judge. The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges King and Berner and Senior Circuit Judge Traxler, conducted a review of the entire record. The court applied the standard for reversible error, which requires a mistake that affects the substantial rights of the parties. After examining the materials before them, the judges found no such error. The court concluded that the district court's denial of the Rule 33 motion was correct and that the facts and legal contentions were sufficiently presented in the written record to make oral argument unnecessary.
The district court's order denying the motion for a new trial remains in effect. Russell's conviction and sentence stand as originally adjudicated. Because the appeal was resolved on the merits of the new trial motion, any request for bail or release pending appeal is now moot and has been denied. The decision serves as a final affirmation of the lower court's handling of the Rule 33 motion.