inconsistent. Even if it were, this court has rejected this line of argument. See, e.g., United States v. Whatley, 133 F.3d 601, 606 (8th Cir.1998) ("The only relevant question when reconciling inconsistent verdicts ... is whether there was enough evidence presented to support the conviction.... Inconsistent verdicts are not, on their own, sufficient grounds for reversal or a new trial”). 18 .Following his convictions, Medearis filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which the district court denied. In a one-paragraph argument on appeal, Medearis claims this was error. We have reviewed Medearis' argument and our analysis of the controlling factors establishes that his argument is without merit. See United States v. Duke, 255 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). BYE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. With due
holding that to obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence the defendant must allege facts from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the defendant holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted holding that unavailable evidence may constitute newly discovered evidence if the failure to learn of the evidence did not result from the defendants lack of due diligence holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative