UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4460

JEFFREY M. GULLER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
William L. Osteen, District Judge.
(CR-97-294, CR-98-318-3)

Submitted: March 31, 2000

Decided: May 3, 2000

Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Harold J. Bender, LAW OFFICE OF HAROLD J. BENDER, Char-
lotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States
Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Char-
lotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey M. Guller appeals from his convictions and resulting con-
current ninety-seven month sentences for money laundering, in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 1957 (1994), and conspiracy to
commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 1956(h)
(1994). On appeal, he maintains that: (1) the district court erred in
failing to dismiss the indictment due to improper jury selection; (2)
there was insufficient evidence that the funds in question were feder-
ally insured, a jurisdictional element; and (3) the district court abused
its discretion in denying Guller's motion for a new trial based on
newly discovered evidence. We affirm.

First, we find that Guller did not comply with the requirements of
28 U.S.C. § 1867 (1994) in challenging the selection of jurors. Even
assuming Guller had done so, our review of the proceedings discloses
no error in the selection process. Second, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government, we find sufficient evidence
that the funds in question were federally insured. See United States
v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 112 (4th Cir. 1988). Third, we find that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Guller's motion
for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence on the ground that
the offered evidence was merely cumulative and impeaching, and
therefore insufficient to warrant a new trial. See United States v.
Singh, 54 F.3d 1182, 1190 (4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm Guller's convictions and sentences. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2
