IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41418
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES of AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
FRANCISCO HUERTA, also known as Pancho
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-96-CR-353-2
--------------------
October 26, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Huerta appeals his conviction by a jury for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and aiding and abetting the
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Huerta contends that
the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence
that Huerta was granted bond, but failed to appear and evaded
authorities for about six months before being arrested again. He
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-41418
-2-
also contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him.
The district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence
under Fed. R. Evid. 403 is final absent an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Townsend, 31 F.3d 262, 268 (5th Cir. 1994).
Huerta makes only the conclusional statement that the jury would
not have found him guilty if the court had excluded evidence of
his flight. This unsupported assertion does not show an abuse of
discretion by the district court. See United States v. Bermea,
30 F.3d 1539, 1562 (5th Cir. 1994). Moreover, Huerta’s flight
was probative of his consciousness of guilt, see United States v.
Williams, 775 F.2d 1295, 1300 (5th Cir. 1985) (defendant moved
after crime was committed), and any undue prejudice was mitigated
by the court’s limiting instruction to the jury. See United
States v. Bailey, 111 F.3d 1229, 1234 (5th Cir. 1997).
Huerta purports to argue that the Government presented
insufficient evidence to convict him. However, his argument is
not one of legal sufficiency, but is only an attack on the
credibility of coconspirator and witness Santos Perez.
This court does not review the weight of the evidence or the
credibility of the witnesses. United States v. Garcia, 995 F.2d
556, 561 (5th Cir. 1993). The “jury is the final arbiter of the
credibility of witnesses [and] ‘a guilty verdict may be sustained
if supported only by the uncorroborated testimony of a
coconspirator, even if the witness is interested due to a plea
bargain or promise of leniency, unless the testimony is
incredible or insubstantial on its face.’” United States v.
White, 219 F.3d 442, 448 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Bermea, 30 F.3d
No. 99-41418
-3-
at 1552). Perez’s testimony was corroborated by wiretap evidence
and was not “incredible or insubstantial on its face”. There was
ample evidence to permit a reasonable jury to convict Huerta.
Huerta’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.