Martez Coleman was convicted after a jury trial of membership in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base and powder, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000), killing, or counseling, commanding, inducing, or procuring, and aiding and abetting in a killing while involved in a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) (2000), and using a firearm in a drug crime or crime of violence, murder, and aiding and abetting in murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000), 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) (2000). Coleman was sentenced to life sentences for these offenses. Coleman has timely appealed.

On appeal, Coleman asserts that the district court erred by (1) allowing the Government to bolster the testimony of two Government witnesses; (2) permitting the Government to introduce a witness’ testimony that effectively punished Coleman for exercising his right to remain silent; and (3) denying his Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion for a new trial. We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141-42, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). A district court’s denial of a Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 motion for a new trial is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1486 (4th Cir. 1985).

Following careful review of the record, we reject Coleman’s claims as meritless. The testimony of the two witnesses in question was not impermissibly bolstered, United States v. Lewis, 10 F.3d 1086, 1089 (4th Cir. 1993); Coleman’s right to remain silent was not infringed by the testimony of another witness, United States v. White *822 head, 618 F.2d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 1980); and Coleman failed to satisfy the requirements necessary to receive a new trial, United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, we affirm Coleman’s conviction and sentence. 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