UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlose Demond ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant, 223 F. App'x 256

PER CURIAM: Carióse Demond Robinson appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 27 motion and his Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion. We note that a Rule 27 motion to perpetuate testimony is available only under the civil rules, which are inapplicable to a criminal proceeding such as this. "While the district court had jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 33 motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence, we conclude that the motion fails on the merits. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny the motion to appoint counsel.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED. . See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). . See United States v. Rouse, 410 F.3d 1005, 1009 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Wallace, 528 F.2d 863, 866 (4th Cir.1976).