United States v. Huggins

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7471
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IRA ST ANTHONY HUGGINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-01098-PMD-1)
Submitted: March 14, 2008 Decided: March 27, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ira St Anthony Huggins, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
- 2 -