UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD MARTIN ANDREWS, a/k/a Edward Andrews,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00320-LMB-1)

Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: October 22, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, W. Todd Watson, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate 

Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Marc Birnbaum,

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Martin Andrews appeals his convictions for bank 

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006), using and 

carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006), and possessing a firearm by a 

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). 

Counsel for Andrews has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues on appeal but questioning whether the 

district court erred when it denied Andrews’s request for a new 

trial based on an alleged violation of Giglio v. United States, 

405 U.S. 150 (1972). Andrews was notified of his right to file 

a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a 

new trial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stokes, 261 

F.3d 496, 502 (4th Cir. 2001). Material evidence tending to 

impeach a prosecution’s witness must be disclosed to a defendant 

if known to the prosecution. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153-55. 

Undisclosed evidence is material when its cumulative effect is 

such that “there is a reasonable probability that, had the 

evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the 

proceeding would have been different.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 

U.S. 419, 433-34 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our 

review of the trial transcript leads us to conclude that the 
3

district court correctly determined the challenged evidence was 

not material and, therefore, that the court did not abuse its 

discretion when it declined to order a new trial based on an 

alleged violation of Giglio. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Andrews, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Andrews requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Andrews.

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