Procedure provides in relevant part: On a defendant’s motion, the court may grant a new trial to that defendant if the interests of justice so require____A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence may be made only within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty.... A motion for a new trial based on any other grounds may be made only within 7 days after the verdict or finding of guilty or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period. We agree with the government that the district court did not have jurisdiction to order a new trial on November 5, 2001 for two reasons. First, the district court did not have jurisdiction to order a new trial because there was no motion pending. See United States v. Brown, 587 F.2d 187,189-90 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>) {citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 33). Moreover, even
holding that motion for a new trial whether for guilt or punishment requires a valid legal claim a court cannot grant a new trial unless the defendant shows that he is entitled to one under the law holding that district court is powerless to order a new trial except on the motion of the defendant holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date holding that the trial court on remand erred when it adopted a new theory of damages contrary to the order of the court of appeals holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion