Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Luis LERMA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-23
Citations: 289 F. App'x 21
Docket Number: No. 07-41187
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Luis LERMA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 21–22

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Luis LERMA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-41187
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 23, 2008.
See also 2008 WL 824311.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
John Grant Jones, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joe Luis Lerma appeals his jury conviction for Medicare and Medicaid fraud. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial following the testimony of Jennifer Allen, which, he contends, gave the jury the impression that he had committed crimes or bad acts not alleged in the indictment.
Lerma is entitled to a new trial "only [if], after a review of the entire record, it appears that there is a significant possibility that the prejudicial evidence had a substantial impact on the jury verdict." United States v. Lucas, 516 F.3d 316, 345 (5th Cir.2008), petition for cert. filed, (June 2, 2008) (No. 07-1512). The prejudicial effect of Allen's testimony was rendered harmless by the district court's curative jury instructions; Lerma's lack of credibility, as evidenced by his own contradictory testimony; and the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. The denial of Lerma's motion for mistrial was therefore not an abuse of discretion. See id.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.