
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lashawn QUINN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-30572.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided May 25, 2005.
    Michael W. Magner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen A. Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert F. Barnard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robin Elise Schulberg, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lashawn Quinn appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). In closing arguments, the prosecutor stated:

Finally, these officers, if they were up to some sort of high jinks in all this and if this wasn’t something they felt strongly about and the evidence wasn’t strong and they didn’t see what they said they saw, do you really think these two NOPD officers would bring this case to the FBI?

Quinn argues that the district court committed reversible error by overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s statement as improper bolstering of witness testimony.

Because the prosecutor’s statement vested the officers’ testimony with the imprimatur of the Government, in that it implied that the witnesses must have been truthful and the case must have been strong or the officers would not have asked the FBI to pursue it, the statement was improper. See United States v. Ramirez-Velasquez, 322 F.3d 868, 874 (5th Cir.2003). Nonetheless, the magnitude of the prejudice suffered by Quinn was not significant. In addition, the court’s instructions to the jury negated any prejudice resulting from the prosecutor’s statement. Moreover, even considering that the testimony presented by the prosecution was bolstered, it cannot be said that, but for the prosecutor’s statement, the jury would have acquitted Quinn. See Ramirez-Velasquez, 322 F.3d at 875; United States v. Simpson, 901 F.2d 1223, 1227 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Iredia, 866 F.2d 114, 117 (5th Cir.1989). The district court did not commit reversible error by overruling Quinn’s objection.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     