### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 considera t i o n at this time of Hollis’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2 006). Hollis contends that the district co u rt abused its discretion by admitting,

over his objection, a government witness’s testimony that she was assaulted and U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 1, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60606 Document: 00511941533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2012No. 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 co u rt failed to conduct the balancing required by Rule 403. Hollis has not shown that the Government’s primary purpo s e 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. Se e United States v. Williams , 620 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 760 (5th Cir. 200 8). Hollis also claims tha t t h e di s t ri c t c o u rt e rred in denying his post-trial motion for a new trial. In light of Hollis’s sparse assertion s i n h i s n e w trial motion and of the conclusion ab o v e that the district co u rt did not abuse its discretion in admitting the witness’s intimidation testimony, Hollis has not shown that the district co u rt clearly abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. See United Stat e s 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 mot i o n s 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 in c lude 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 i n qu e s t i o n at the time of Hurricane Katrina. AFFIRMED.

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