**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 4504** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- A ppellee ,
v. MICHAEL MAKALOU , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00489

- JCC

- 1 )

Submitted : March 1 4 , 2013 Decided: April 3, 2013

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Barry Coburn, COBURN & GREENBAUM, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Rebeca H. Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Chang, UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Makalou appeals his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (2006). On appeal, Makalou argues that the evidence wa s insufficient to support his conviction and that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion s for a new trial . We affirm. This c ourt reviews the denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion de novo. United States v. Lawing , 703 F.3d 229 , 239 (4th Cir. 20 12 ). When a Rule 29 motion is based on a claim of insufficient evidence, the verdict must be sustained “if there is substantial evidence, view ed in the light most favorable to the g overnmen t, to support it.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We will not weigh evidence or review witness credibility. United States v. Wilson , 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997). The government was required to prove that Makalou committed an assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to cause bodily harm. See 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3); United States v.
St urgis , 48 F.3d 784, 786 (4th Cir. 1995). The district court found credible the testimony of the victim, an examining doctor, a neighbor, and several federal agents. Taking the view most favorable to the government, the evidence established each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We thus3 reject Makalou’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
See Lawing , 703 F.3d at 240. A district court may grant a new trial on a defendant’s motion “if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Rule 33 motions are granted

“ sparingly [] and
. . . only when the evidence weighs heavily against the verdict.” United States v. C hong Lam , 677 F.3d 190, 203 (4th Cir. 2012) ( internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the district court’s denial is for abuse of discretion. United States v. Moore , F.3d , , 2013 WL 765746, at * 4 (4th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013).
A fter a complete review of the record, we conclude that Makalou did not present sufficient grounds for which the district court could grant him a new trial. See United
States v. Custis , 988 F.2d 1355 , 1359 (4th Cir. 1993) (“This circuit has emphasized that new evidence going only to the credibility of a witness does not generally warrant the granting of a new trial.” ); see also Moore , 2013 WL 765746, at * 4 (setting forth five factors that district court s consider when evaluating motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence) . We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion s for a new trial
. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and4 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED