King

MEMORANDUM **

Norman Anthony King appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

King contends that he should receive a new trial because the government withheld certain evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The district court found, however, that no exculpatory evidence was withheld, and that finding is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Lam, 251 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error).

King also contends that the recent opinion of a handwriting expert, stating that King did not sign check # 1048, constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. Because the documents examined by King’s new handwriting expert were available before trial, because the new opinion is cumulative, at best, and because the opinion has no bearing on other evidence that King signed the checks, the district court’s determination that no new trial was warranted was proper. See United States v. Kulczyk, 931 F.2d 542, 548 (9th Cir.1991)…