Defendant-Appellant Mike Barlatier appeals his conviction after a jury trial for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

At Barlatier’s trial, officers, who were executing an arrest warrant against Barlatier, testified that they found Barlatier in the driver’s seat of a car with “Mr. Bethel” in the front passenger seat. As officers removed Barlatier from the car, they saw a gun on the floorboard near the driver’s seat. Barlatier was charged with possession of the firearm.

During closing arguments at Barlatier’s trial, Barlatier’s lawyer asked the jury to *570 consider “who is Bethel, where is he.”. Bethel did not testify at Barlatier’s trial. During the government’s closing argument, the government stated that, although the burden of proof rested only with the government, both parties had the ability to present witnesses and either party could have called Bethel as a witness. The district court later instructed the jury that the government has the burden of proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that a defendant is not required to prove his innocence or to produce evidence at trial. The district court also gave the jury this instruction:

There are people whose names you heard during the course of the trial but who did not appear to testify. One or more of the attorneys has referred to their absence from the trial. I instruct you that each party had an equal opportunity to call any of these witnesses. Therefore, you should not draw any inferences or reach any conclusions as to what they would have testified had they been called. Their absences should not affect your judgment in any way. You should remember any instruction, however, that the law does not impose on a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.

On appeal, Barlatier contends that, although both parties have subpoena power, only the government can grant immunity or offer a sentence reduction to a witness who might give incriminating testimony. Therefore, he asserts that the government and a defendant do not — as the district court instructed the jury — have “equal opportunity” to call a witness; so Barlatier contends that the district court’s jury instruction was misleading. We reject this argument. 1

We have explained that “[i]t is not prejudicial for the jury to know that witnesses may be called by either side.” United States v. Esle, 743 F.2d 1465, 1478 (11th Cir. 1984), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Blankenship, 382 F.3d 1110, 1122 n. 23 (11th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Hernandez, 145 F.3d 1433, 1439 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[WJhile a prosecutor may not comment about the absence of witnesses or otherwise attempt to shift the burden of proof, it is not improper for a prosecutor to note that the defendant has the same subpoena powers as the government, particularly when done in response to a defendant’s argument about the prosecutor’s failure to call a specific witness.”) (internal quotation omitted). 2 *571 In this case, although the district court instructed the jury that both parties could call witnesses for trial, the district court’s instructions also made clear that the burden of proof rested only with the government. Barlatier has offered no authority indicating that the district court was required to instruct the jury that the government potentially could offer immunity or recommend a sentence reduction for a testifying witness. The district court’s jury instructions were not misleading or a misstatement of the law.

We affirm Barlatier’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.