
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alphonso GAINER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-40306.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 19, 2004.
    David Haskell Henderson, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Frank Warren Henderson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Amy R. Blalock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alphonso Gainer appeals his conviction for forcibly assaulting a federal officer. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and, additionally, argues that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded from the evidence a report prepared by Agent Derric Wilson.

With regard to Gamer’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, we hold that when the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Gainer assaulted Officers Theis and Rivers and, further, that Gainer possessed the requisite mens rea. See United, States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975); United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir.2000). The testimony of the defense’s medical witnesses does not render the Government’s evidence insufficient, because a resultant injury is not necessary for a 18 U.S.C. § 111 conviction. See United States v. Ramirez, 233 F.3d 318, 321 (5th Cir.2000), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. Longoria, 298 F.3d 367, 372 n. 6 (5th Cir.2002).

With regard to Gamer’s evidentiary argument, the district court excluded Agent Wilson’s report pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 403 based on a determination, unchallenged by Gainer, that there existed a substantial risk that the jury would be misled by Agent Wilson’s opinion in its efforts to evaluate the same evidence that was considered by Wilson in making the report. Gainer’s failure to challenge the district court’s evidentiary decision on this basis renders the issue waived. See United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n. 3 (5th Cir.2000).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     