a rational juror could find that McGee and Maguire had a relationship of trust or confidence based on their history, pattern or practice of sharing confidences related to sobriety to support a conviction for securities fraud. In addition, there was sufficient evidence to support a perjury conviction, and the District Court did not exceed permissible discretion in denying McGee’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The judgment' of the District Court will be affirmed. 1 . The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the facts in the "light most favorable to the prosecution." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed 2003) (<HOLDING>). 5 . In McGee's motion to dismiss the
holding such duties existed between members of a group of software executives because the need for confidentiality was understood recognizing standing for an environmental group based on the adverse effect of an international commerce commission decision on its members holding that the defendants statement was involuntary because federal officer made a direct promise of confidentiality holding that there was no duty of confidentiality between members of a social group of ceos although club rules emphasized a need for confidential ity holding that licensing agreement controlled the scope of the users rights in the software