Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ira St. Anthony HUGGINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-27
Citations: 271 F. App'x 315
Docket Number: No. 07-7471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ira St. Anthony HUGGINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 315–315

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ira St. Anthony HUGGINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-7471.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2008.
Decided: March 27, 2008.
Ira St. Anthony Huggins, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ira St. Anthony Huggins appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying Huggins' motion for a new trial. We affirm.
Huggins sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. In order to warrant a new trial on this basis, Huggins must show that: (1) the evidence is newly discovered; (2) he used due diligence to discover the evidence; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence would probably result in his acquittal at a new trial. United States v. Lofton, 233 F.3d 313, 318 (4th Cir.2000). With these criteria in mind, we have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Huggins' motion for reconsideration of the order. United States v. Adam, 70 F.3d 776, 779 (4th Cir.1995) (reviewing denial of Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion for new trial for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.