IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11079
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCUS WILLIAMS WARREN,
also known as Marcus William Warren,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:01-CR-21-1-P
--------------------
April 29, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marcus Williams Warren appeals his conviction under
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), for possessing a firearm after having been
convicted of a felony. Warren’s motion to supplement the record
is GRANTED.
Warren challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He
contends that the Government’s evidence consisted of one police
officer’s testimony and that this testimony was inconsistent with
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-11079
-2-
the testimony of another police officer and with the defense
witness’s testimony.
The jury was free to believe one witness’s testimony over
another’s, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of
the jury on the issue of witness credibility. United States v.
Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 161 (5th Cir. 1992).
Warren contends that the district court erred by admitting
irrelevant and overly prejudicial evidence that he was arrested
in a part of Dallas that is known to be a high-crime area. The
evidence was presented to explain the police’s presence and
conduct rather than to suggest anything about Warren or the
defense witness. Warren’s counsel effectively presented evidence
demonstrating a legitimate reason for Warren to be in the
neighborhood. Reviewing the district court’s admission of the
evidence to determine whether the evidence was relevant and
whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its
probative value, we find no error. United States v. Fortenberry,
919 F.2d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.