United States v. Ledingham , 417 F. App'x 266 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6332
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOHN LAWTON LEDINGHAM,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:07-cr-00007-nkm-1)
Submitted: February 3, 2010 Decided: March 17, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph A. Sanzone, SANZONE & BAKER, P.C., Lynchburg, Virginia,
for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Craig
J. Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Lawton Ledingham was convicted of being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). He moved for a new trial based on a diary
belonging to his wife, which suggested that, contrary to her
trial testimony, the firearms found in Ledingham’s home belonged
to her. The district court denied Ledingham’s motion. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a
new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Fulcher, 250 F.3d 244, 249 (4th Cir. 2001). To
receive a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence, a
defendant must show that: (1) the evidence is newly-discovered;
(2) he has been diligent in uncovering it; (3) the evidence is
not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is
material to the issues involved; and (5) the evidence would
probably produce an acquittal. United States v. Chavis, 880
F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989). The district court should deny
the motion unless the defendant demonstrates all five of these
factors. Id.We hold that the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Ledingham’s motion for a new trial.
First, the diary is cumulative of ownership claims Ledingham’s
wife initially made to the police before trial, which were
2
presented to the jury at trial. It is also impeaching, going
directly to Ledingham’s wife’s credibility. Because Ledingham’s
conviction was supported by evidence other than his wife’s
testimony, we conclude that this is not the kind of rare case in
which a new trial based on newly discovered impeachment evidence
is warranted. See United States v. Custis, 988 F.2d 1355, 1359
(4th Cir. 1993).
Moreover, the diary entries would not result in a jury
being more likely than not to acquit Ledingham. Again, we note
Ledingham’s wife’s trial testimony was not the only evidence
presented that Ledingham possessed firearms. Additionally, the
diary merely calls into question the ownership of the firearms.
Ownership, however, is not required to sustain a conviction
under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the jury heard significant
evidence that Ledingham constructively possessed the firearms.
See United States v. Branch, 547 F.3d 328, 343 (4th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
3