asked Jeffrey Gibson about his knowledge of Gibson’s past convictions. Jeffrey Gibson responded that Gibson had told him about her manslaughter conviction. The defense objected and moved for a mistrial. The district court then gave the jury a curative instruction in which it directed them to disregard the reference to the prior conviction. On appeal, the government properly concedes that the admission was error, as the conviction dates from 1974. See Fed.R.Evid. 609(b). However, we must nonetheless determine whether the impermissible reference to Gibson's prior conviction was harmless in light of the district court’s curative instruction and the other admissible evidence adduced in support of Gibson’s conviction. See United States v. LeQuire, 943 F.2d 1554, 1571-72 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 46 . While the government's initial brief
holding prejudicial effect of prosecutors comment not rendered harmless by courts general instruction that the arguments of counsel are not evidence holding harmless an inadmissible comment as prejudicial effect was removed by district courts curative instruction recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding that a district court can cure the effect of an improper prosecutorial comment with a jury instruction holding that where an objection is sustained and curative instruction given and no further relief such as a mistrial additional curative instruction or striking of the offending comment is requested there is nothing for the appellate court to review