to attorney Pérez-Olivo’s conflicting loyalty to another client who might have been prejudiced by their cooperation with the government. They also alleged that counsel misled them by minimizing and misstating the government’s evidence against them and by failing to advise them about the consequences of going to trial and to provide them with guidance regarding sentencing procedures. The district court denied the motion without prejudice on January 5,1999. Rule 33 requires that a motion for a new trial on grounds other than newly discovered evidence be filed within seven days after the verdict. Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. If based on newly discovered evidence, the motion must be made within three years after the verdict. Id.; see also United States v. Lema, 909 F.2d 561, 566 n. 6 (1st Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). “A motion for new trial based on newly
holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that defendant waived ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsels failure to emphasize certain evidence where amended motion for new trial did not assert claim of ineffectiveness on that ground and no argument related to the asserted ground was made at the motion for new trial hearing holding that a defendant whose new trial motion is based on the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel may bypass rule 33s sevenday time limit only if his claim that his counsel  was ineffective was based on information unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial holding that res judicata does not bar a defendant from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a postcollateral proceeding if the defendant was represented by the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal or if an actual conflict of interest enjoined appellate counsel from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal recognizing that the defendant whose trial counsel represented him on motion for new trial had no opportunity to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim prior to appeal and remanding the case for a hearing solely on this issue