119 S.Ct. 1402. 4 . Id. at 405, 414, 119 S.Ct. 1402. 5 . United States v. Vasquez, 677 F.3d 685, 692 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Campbell, 52 F.3d 521, 522 (5th Cir.1995) (per curiam)). 6 . Id. (citing United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam)). 7 . United States v. McCauley, 253 F.3d 815, 818 (5th Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Odiodio, 244 F.3d 398, 400-01 (5th Cir.2001)). 8 . Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 274, 112 S.Ct. 1881, 119 L.Ed.2d 57 (1992) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). 9 . See United States v. Wilson, 322 F.3d 353, 363-64 (5th Cir.2003). 10 . United States v. Chapman, 435 F.2d 1245, 1247 (5th Cir.1970). 11 . See United States v. Santos, 589 F.3d 759, 764 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). 12 . 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). 13 . United
recognizing that informing the jury that testifying witness has agreed to cooperate with the government is a doubleedged sword as the existence of such agreement may suggest either that the witness will testify in accordance with the governments wishes regardless of the truth or that the witness will not he under threat of revocation of the agreement should the witness commit perjury holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony to only one witness where additional witnesses would have provided the same testimony holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary holding that the district court did not err in instructing the jury not to draw any adverse inferences from the governments failure to call a witness because the witness did not have a relationship with the government such that one would expect him to give testimony in favor of the government