Order Denying Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial [30] — United States v. Eburuche (Dkt. 45, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

An order of U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds in United States v. Reginald Eburuche, Case No. 24-20400, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, dated and filed September 15, 2025 as ECF No. 45. It denies the defendant's renewed motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial (ECF No. 30). The order recounts that Eburuche was charged with bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), that trial began May 20, 2025, that the jury returned a guilty verdict on May 29, 2025, and that the court denied his oral motion for a directed verdict on June 4, 2025. Because the renewed motion was filed June 30, 2025, about 30 days after the verdict and past the 14-day deadlines of Rules 29(c)(1) and 33(b)(2), the court holds that it is untimely and that the court lacks jurisdiction to decide it on the merits.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 2:24-cr-20400-NGE-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.643 Filed 09/15/25 Page 1 of 2




                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                               SOUTHERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
       Plaintiff,                                       Case No. 24-20400
v.                                                      Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
REGINALD EBURUCHE,

       Defendant.
_______________________________/

            ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR
          JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL [30]

       Defendant Reginald Eburuche was charged with bank fraud in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1344(2). (ECF No. 1.) Trial commenced on May 20, 2025. At the end of the

government’s case-in-chief, Defendant made an oral motion for a directed verdict. (ECF

No. 23.) The Court took the motion under advisement. On May 29, 2025, the jury

returned a verdict of guilty against Defendant. (ECF No. 25.) On June 4, 2025, the Court

issued a written order denying Defendant’s oral motion for directed verdict, finding that

when the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, “there was

sufficient evidence presented at trial from which a reasonable jury could find that

Defendant committed bank fraud, including that he had the requisite intent to defraud.”

(ECF No. 26.)

       The matter is now before the Court on Defendant’s renewed motion for judgment

of acquittal and motion for new trial. (ECF No. 30.) A post-trial motion for judgment of

acquittal must be filed or renewed within 14 days after the jury verdict. Fed. R. Crim. P.

29(c)(1). A 14-day deadline also applies to motions for a new trial under Rule 33(b)(2)


                                             1

Case 2:24-cr-20400-NGE-DRG ECF No. 45, PageID.644 Filed 09/15/25 Page 2 of 2




when based on any reason other than newly discovered evidence. Defendant’s

renewed motion was filed June 30, 2025, approximately 30 days after the jury returned

its guilty verdict. Defendant’s renewed motion is therefore untimely. Rule 45(b)(1)(B)

allows the Court to extend the time for filing a motion on its own, or for good cause on a

party’s motion, “after the time expires if the party failed to act because of excusable

neglect.” Defendant has not sought an extension or provided any justification for the late

filing, nor is the Court aware of a reason to employ its equitable authority to extend the

deadline in this case.

       The Sixth Circuit has explained that the deadline for filing Rule 29(c) and Rule 33

motions is to be strictly enforced:

       Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure seek to
       promote finality by creating a bright-line rule: defendants must file their
       motions within fourteen days or they will be lost. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29,
       33 advisory committee's note to 2005 amendments. Moreover, prompt filing
       of these motions allows for the presiding judge to rule on them while the
       evidence is still fresh in her mind. The only exception to this bright-line rule
       comes in the case of excusable neglect. But without a finding of excusable
       neglect, the time limits should be enforced and the motions forfeited.

United States v. Elenniss, 729 F. App'x 422, 428 (6th Cir. 2018). Because Defendant’s

renewed motions are untimely, the Court does not have jurisdiction to determine them

on the merits.

       For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant’s renewed motion for judgment of

acquittal and motion for new trial (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.

       SO ORDERED.

                                           s/Nancy G. Edmunds
                                           Nancy G. Edmunds
                                           United States District Judge

Dated: September 15, 2025

                                              2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mied.378617.45.0.pdf

Size

131,002 bytes

SHA-256

f75d2498160ca92401378fdd0bcdd4577d76619270dc2ffd147ddd2438433207

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mied.378617.45.0.pdf

Original

archive.org