093441P.pdf   08/18/2011  United States  v.  Darwin Huggans
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  09-3441
                          and No:  10-3384
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Melloy, Circuit Judge, with Bye, Circuit Judge and
   Ericksen, District Judge]
   Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. District court did not err in
   denying motion to dismiss indictment for insufficiency, as the indictment
   stated the time frame for the conspiracy and the drugs involved and the
   attempt charge need not specify the substantial step committed in
   furtherance of the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion
   in denying bill of particulars in light of disclosure by government of
   discovery and failure by Huggans to show actual surprise. District court
   did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to sever the two counts as
   there was no actual prejudice. Sufficient evidence was presented
   connecting Huggans to the conspiracy and proving Huggans took a
   substantial step towards acquiring 20 kilograms of cocaine. District court
   did not err in refusing to equitably toll the five-year limitations period 
   for challenging his prior conviction. Denial of motion for new trial based 
   on newly discovered evidence was not a clear abuse of discretion, as
   evidence is not newly discovered, and would not warrant a new trial. 
   District court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct in camera
   review of PSRs of cooperating government witnesses because neither
   party requested such review.