UNITED STATES v. BRUNOEHLER
714 F.2d 99 (1983)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
John Justin BRUNOEHLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 82-3097 Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
September 9, 1983.
John L. Woodard, III, Subet & Woodard, Marc L. Lubet, Orlando, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Joseph T. Urbaniak, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Orlando, Fla., Janis Kockritz, Appellate Sect., Crim. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, FAY and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
John Brunoehler appeals his jury conviction of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine in violation of section 841(a)(1) of Title 21 of the United States Code. Appellant's sole contention is that the district court erred in not granting a new trial when, in his closing argument, the prosecutor discredited a material government witness by describing him as untrustworthy.
The witness in question, Stephen Wyman, was a paid confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and one of two purchasers in the drug transaction for which the appellant was convicted. Wyman purloined four ounces of the six ounces of the cocaine received during the drug transaction and concealed it from DEA agents. At trial, Wyman testified that he had given differing accounts regarding the whereabouts of the cocaine. He admitted that when first confronted by DEA agents regarding the missing cocaine he reported putting the drug in his apartment from which it was stolen. Wyman also testified that he later admitted to a grand jury that upon cleaning his van after the DEA search which followed the drug transaction he found the dampened cocaine, took it to his apartment and tried to dry it out for his own use only to discover that it had ruined. In his closing argument, the prosecutor referred to Wyman's theft of a portion of the cocaine and his differing accounts about what had happened to the drug.
I also indicated to you that Mr. Wyman stole part of the cocaine in so many words.
. . . . .
You as common sense people have been around and can probably conclude that he is less than candid when he testifies.
Maybe he is trying to protect himself on a little minor point or two, or maybe it is not minor, but he is trying to protect himself on certain things.