Denny Ray Gullett appeals from the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his motion for a new trial based on his allegation of newly discovered evidence that a prosecutorial expert witness falsely testified about his academic credentials. We *555 have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Gullett failed to make the requisite showing to warrant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Wallace, 528 F.2d 863, 866 (4th Cir. 1976) (applying test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Gullett’s motion for a new trial. 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.