
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kevin JACKSON, aka Treppants, Ryan King, Vivian Montaque, Anthony Phillips, aka Curtis, Desmond Shaw, Karl Wilson, aka Barry, Tamard Cleary, aka Tommy, Sheldon Fuller, aka Andre Blake, aka David Campbell, Mark Brown, aka Blackbud, aka Blacks, aka Kirk Watson, Conrad Cooper, aka Dervin, Robert Deleon, aka Bobby Socks, aka Robert Miller, Enrico Thomas, aka Meng Feng, aka Rico, Stephen Mattis, Maxine Davis, Kevon Holt, Lewis Carrides, aka Dibble, Tedane Muir, aka Sampson, Grandville Newell, aka Sherlock, aka Donald Thomas, Matthew Martin, aka Blacks, Defendants, Bobby Weston, aka Badness, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-736-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    May 5, 2011.
    Flora Edwards, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    Steve C. Lee (Andrew L. Fish, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: WALKER, GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Bobby Weston appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.), which denied his third motion for a new trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 295 (2d Cir.2006). This court disfavors motions for a new trial, United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 364 (2d Cir.1995), and has directed district courts to grant new trials only in exceptional circumstances, United States v. Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409, 1414 (2d Cir.1992). “The ultimate test is whether letting a guilty verdict stand would be a manifest injustice. There must be a real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted.” United States v. Canova, 412 F.3d 331, 349 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).

We have reviewed the district court’s order and conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Weston’s third motion for a new trial. The district court provided numerous reasons for denying Weston’s motion, all of which were well within the court’s discretion. We have considered all of Weston’s other arguments on appeal and find them without merit. Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Weston’s third motion for a new trial is AFFIRMED.  