the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Piazza, 647 F.3d 559, 564 (5th Cir.2011). Fleming moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence “that [she] was medicated during trial in violation of [her] right to due process, both because the medication was without medical need and also because it was involuntary.” A panel of this court found on direct appeal that Fleming’s due process claim failed because she “voluntarily agreed to take her medication as a condition of being allowed to proceed pro se.” Arthur, 432 Fed.Appx. at 428 (emphasis added). Thus, due process did not require a determination whether the medication was medically appropriate. Cf. Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 179-82, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not err in concluding
holding that defendants have a due process right to avoid the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs absent a finding inter alia that the drugs administered were medically appropriate holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold holding that the fortress theory was applicable where it reasonably appeared that the gun was used to protect the drugs given that the drugs and firearm were found in the same location holding evidence was insufficient to link defendant to drugs in borrowed vehicle when the drugs were not in plain view the defendant disavowed knowledge that drugs were hidden in floorboard of car and a person antagonistic toward defendants husband had access to the car before she borrowed it