Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Virgil L. BURRIS, aka Kooka, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-17
Citations: 454 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 10-30347
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Virgil L. BURRIS, aka Kooka, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 454
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Virgil L. BURRIS, aka Kooka, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-30347.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2011.
Filed Oct. 17, 2011.
Nancy D. Cook, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Coeur D’Alene, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven Paul Frampton, Esquire, Hayden Lake, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and COLLINS, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
One requirement for getting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is that "the new evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching." Lindsey v. United States, 368 F.2d 633, 634 (9th Cir.1966); see United States v. Kulczyk, 931 F.2d 542, 549 (9th Cir.1991). Burris presents Swan's recantation, but Swan has repudiated his recantation. "[WJhere the recantation has itself been repudiated, . the recantation becomes merely impeaching and could be used at a new trial only for the purpose of cross examining the witness, and not as substantive evidence." Lindsey, 368 F.2d at 636. This case does not present a rare exception where impeachment evidence alone might support a new trial, see United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 825 (9th Cir.1992), because other witnesses corroborated aspects of Swan's trial testimony.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.