IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60606

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WENDELL W. HOLLIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:11-CR-9-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Wendell W. Hollis appeals his jury trial conviction

for theft of government funds, for which he was sentenced to 16 months in prison

and three years of supervised release. The record is insufficiently developed to

allow consideration at this time of Hollis’s claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006).

Hollis contends that the district court abused its discretion by admitting,

over his objection, a government witness’s testimony that she was assaulted and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 1, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-60606 Document: 00511941533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2012
No. 11-60606

intimidated by Hollis’s sister and by failing to weigh the probative value of this

testimony against its prejudicial effect, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence

403. The record belies Hollis’s argument that the district court failed to conduct

the balancing required by Rule 403. Hollis has not shown that the Government’s

primary purpose in calling this witness was to elicit otherwise impermissible

evidence that Hollis’s sister assaulted and intimidated that witness. Based on

the record, the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in admitting this

evidence. See United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2010);

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 760 (5th Cir. 2008).

 Hollis also claims that the district court erred in denying his post-trial

motion for a new trial. In light of Hollis’s sparse assertions in his new trial

motion and of the conclusion above that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in admitting the witness’s intimidation testimony, Hollis has not

shown that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying his motion

for a new trial. See United States v. Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d 600, 605 (5th

Cir. 2008).

Because Hollis preserved his insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim as to his

occupancy of the property on which his allegedly false FEMA claims were based

by making several motions for judgment of acquittal, we review that claim de

novo. United States v. Moreland, 665 F.3d 137, 148 (5th Cir. 2011). This review,

however, “does not include a review of the weight of the evidence or of the

credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 353 (5th

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Viewed in the light

most favorable to the verdict, see id., this evidence supports a finding beyond a

reasonable doubt that Hollis did not occupy the lot in question at the time of

Hurricane Katrina.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-60606 Document: 00511941533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2012