A motion for new trial filed after the completion of a defendant’s direct appeal is a collateral act for which the defendant is not guaranteed counsel under the Sixth Amendment. The defendant here filed his post-appeal motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, and after the district court declined to appoint counsel, argued on appeal that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. Defendant relied on a case in which the Ninth Circuit had held that a defendant in California state court was entitled to counsel in filing a motion for new trial. The Ninth Circuit here distinguished that case, however, on the ground that it had involved a pre-appeal motion for new trial. Following the direct appeal of a federal conviction, appointment of counsel for a new trial motion is not constitutionally guaranteed.