UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5659

BRIDGETTE MARLENE LAPIERRE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-95-19)

Submitted: May 16, 1996

Decided: May 31, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William E. Martin, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Timika Shafeek,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bridgette Lapierre appeals from her conviction of possession with

intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1995). Lapierre claims that the evidence

was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict and that the district court

erred in denying her motion for a new trial based on newly discovered

evidence. We affirm.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the government to determine whether any rational trier of fact

could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). All reasonable inferences from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable

to the government. United States v. Giunta, 925 F.2d 758, 764 (4th

Cir. 1991). Further, in resolving issues of substantial evidence, this

court does not weigh evidence or review witness credibility. United

States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).

The evidence adduced at Lapierre's trial established that, on the

morning of January 19, 1995, Lapierre was approached by two police

officers at the Greensboro, North Carolina airport. Lapierre had just

deboarded a Continental Airlines flight from Newark, New Jersey,

and the officers (who were part of a Drug Interdiction Task Force)

had observed her acting suspiciously (nervously clutching a black

leather duffel bag). When asked why she had come to North Carolina,

Lapierre stated that she had come to care for a disabled relative who

lived in North Carolina, but that she did not know in what city the relative lived.

Lapierre consented to a search of the bag which had a combination

lock on it. After she was unable to open the lock, Officer Kowalski

asked Lapierre for the combination, and she replied"6-0-4." Using

 2
this combination, Kowalski opened the bag and began removing articles of clothing. At the bottom of the bag was a package wrapped in

gray duct tape. When Kowalski removed the package--which contained six pounds of marijuana--Lapierre denied ownership of the

bag, claiming that she must have picked up the wrong bag on the

plane or en route. However, the parties stipulated that Continental

Airlines reported no unclaimed luggage on any flights through either

Greensboro or Newark on the day Lapierre was arrested, or the following day. The bag Lapierre was carrying, and which contained her

boarding pass in an outside pocket, was ultimately found to contain

926.9 grams of cocaine hydrochloride and six pounds of marijuana.

We find this evidence sufficient to sustain Lapierre's conviction.

After the jury returned its verdict, Lapierre filed a motion for a new

trial based on newly discovered evidence claiming that the lock could

be opened with a combination other than 6-0-4. Lapierre's attorney

stated in the motion that he had opened the lock during closing arguments using a different combination. At the hearing on her motion,

Lapierre presented the testimony of a locksmith who stated that the

combination to the lock appeared to be 8-3-5 but that, due to damage

to the lock mechanism, the lock could be opened using several other

combinations, including 6-0-4. The Government noted, in its opposition to Lapierre's motion, that the lock had been handled by both

counsels, government agents, defense investigators, and the jury and

that, therefore, it was impossible to tell when the damage had

occurred.

To obtain a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence,

the defendant must show that the evidence is newly discovered, that

he used due diligence to discover it earlier, that the evidence is not

merely cumulative or impeaching, that the evidence is material, and

that the evidence would probably result in an acquittal at a new trial.

United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989). The denial

of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Singh, 54 F.3d 1182, 1190 (4th Cir. 1995). We agree

with the district court's conclusion that Lapierre's new evidence

would not likely result in an acquittal at a new trial and, therefore, the

denial of her motion was not an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-

 3
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 4