* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50536

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL MERIDYTH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(MO-99-CR-36-1)

May 18, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Presenting two issues, Michael Meridyth appeals his

convictions for conspiracy to distribute, and distribution of, more

than five grams of crack cocaine.

First, Meridyth contends the evidence was insufficient to

support his convictions. Meridyth moved unsuccessfully for

judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s case-inchief, but failed to renew his motion at the close of the evidence.

Consequently, Meridyth waived any objection to the de nial of his2

motion to acquit. E.g., United States v. Shannon , 21 F.3d 77, 83

(5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 513 U.S. 901 ( 1994). Thus, we review

only whether there has been a manifest miscarriage of justice. I d.

We will reverse Me ridyth’s convictions o nly if “the record is

devoid of evidence pointi ng to guilt”. I d. (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted; emphasis added).

Meridyth challenges the credibility of Robinson, a government

informant who testified about his prior dealings with Meridyth and

the events surrounding the drug transaction. Of course, “the jury

is the final arbiter of the credibility of witnesses.” U nited

States v. Bermea

, 30 F.3d 1539, 1552 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

513 U.S. 1156 (1995). In any event, the following additional

evidence was introduced: corroborating testimony by detective

Medrano, who observed the transaction; evidence linking Meridyth to

the cellular telephone number and vehicle used in the transaction;

an audio tape of the transaction linking Meridyth to the drugs; and

evidence of attempts by Meridyth to evade arrest. In short, there

was no manifest miscarriage of justice.

Second, Meridy th asserts he was denied a fundamentally fair

trial because of comments by the district judge, referring to the

televisio n show, “The Sopranos”. S ee United States v. Johnston

,

127 F .3d 380, 388 (5th Cir. 1997), c ert. denied

, 522 U.S. 1152

(1998). Because Meridyth f ailed to object to those comments, we

review only for plain error. See, e.g., United States v.

Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.

denied , 513 U.S. 1196 (1995).3

After a recorded sample of Meridyth’s voice was played for

the jury (before it was played, Meridyth’s lawyer stated that he

“just want[ed] the jury to know that Mr. Meridyth read a script I

wrote”), the district judge stated: “ I don’t think that script’s

going to sell to the [S]opranos”; and “I don’t think Tony Soprano

is worried about his brother being wired”. The comments were

apparently made in an attempt to inject some humor into the

proceedings. Even assuming they were inappropriate, they did not

affect Meridyth’s substantial rights. The jury was informed of its

duty to determine credibility; and was instructed to consider only

the evidence adduced at trial and to disregard any comments by the

court. See. e.g., Johnston , 127 F.3d at 388. There was no plain

error.

AFFIRMED