did not base its decision on that standard. We have considered all of Defendant’s claims and find them meritless. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 1 . Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 allows the court to grant a new trial, "if the interest of justice so requires,” on a motion from the defendant, subject to the certain time limitations: (1) if the motion is based on newly discovered evidence, it must be filed within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty, but (2) if the motion is grounded on any other basis, it must be filed within seven days after the verdict or finding of guilty, unless the court, during that seven-day period, grants an extension of the time to file. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. 2 . See, e.g., United States v. Jasin, 280 F.3d 355, 362, 364 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Theodosopoulos, 48 F.3d
holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment holding that unavailable evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence if the failure to learn of the evidence did not result from the defendants lack of due diligence holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding that newly available evidence does not constitute newly discovered evidence for pinposes of extending beyond seven days the time for filing a rule 33 motion holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed