This appeal is from a conviction for fraud by wire in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343. We affirm.

The refusal to grant a second continuance at the request of appellant because of the absence of a defense witness was in the discretion of the trial court, and that discretion was not abused. United States v. Pierce, 5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 678. Similarly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence since that evidence, the testimony of the formerly absent witness, was merely cumulative and did not raise a substantial probability that its admission at a new trial would produce a different result. See United States v. Rodriguez, 5 Cir. 1971, 437 F.2d 940; United States v. Hersh, 5 Cir. 1969, 415 F.2d 835; Reno v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 340 F.2d 307; Ledet v. United States, 5 Cir. 1962, 297 F.2d 737, 739.

Affirmed.