
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl FLETCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-30622
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 15, 2007.
    Mary J. Mudrick, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Betty Lee Marak, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Carl Fletcher was found guilty on a single-count indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. As his sole argument on appeal, Fletcher argues that the jury heard the testimony concerning the nature of his prior felony drug conviction in violation of the holding in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997). We review the district court’s evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d 456, 464 (5th Cir.2004).

Under Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 174, 117 S.Ct. 644 a district court abuses its discretion if it admits the name or nature of a stipulated prior conviction when such is offered solely to prove the prior-conviction element of the offense, and its introduction raises a risk of a verdict tainted by improper considerations. The instant case is distinguishable from Old Chief because the Government did not seek to introduce evidence of the prior conviction “solely” to prove the prior-conviction element of the offense. Rather, the Government elicited the testimony in order to establish that Williams might have a bias in favor of Fletcher. The potential bias of a witness is always relevant testimony. United States v. Powell, 124 F.3d 655, 661 (5th Cir.1997). As in the instant case, evidence of bias may include testimony concerning the prior history between a witness and a defendant where the history establishes a possible motive for slanted testimony. See, e.g., id. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the testimony. See Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d at 464.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     