682, 685 (8th Cir.2001). In order to receive a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Baker must prove four factors ... :(1) the evidence must have been unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) the defendant must have been duly diligent in attempting to uncover it; (3) the newly discovered evidence must be material; and (4) the newly discovered evidence must be such that its emergence probably will result in an acquittal upon retrial. United States v. Haskell, 468 F.3d 1064, 1076 (8th Cir.2006); see also United States v. Johnson, 450 F.3d 366, 372 (8th Cir.2006) (same). Furthermore, in order to meet the materiality requirement, newly discovered evidence must be “more than merely ... impeaching.” Dogskin, 265 F.3d at 685; see Johnson, 450 F.3d at 372-73 (<HOLDING>). With these requirements in mind, we review
holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial because nonmovant presented sufficient evidence at trial for the district court to conclude that the outcome was not against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a miscarriage of justice holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach  testimony holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for severance where the allegedly prejudicial evidence would have been admissible in separate trials