Alphonso Gainer appeals his conviction for forcibly assaulting a federal officer. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and, additionally, argues that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded from the evidence a report prepared by Agent Derric Wilson.

With regard to Gamer’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, we hold that when the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Gainer assaulted Officers Theis and Rivers and, further, that Gainer possessed the requisite mens rea. See United, States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975); United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000). The testimony of the defense’s medical witnesses does not render the Government’s evidence insufficient, because a resultant injury is not necessary for a 18 U.S.C. § 111 conviction. See United States v. Ramirez, 233 F.3d 318, 321 (5th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by, United States v. Longoria, 298 F.3d 367, 372 n. 6 (5th Cir. 2002).

With regard to Gamer’s evidentiary argument, the district court excluded Agent Wilson’s report pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 403 based on a determination, unchallenged by Gainer, that there existed a substantial risk that the jury would be misled by Agent Wilson’s opinion in its efforts to evaluate the same evidence that was considered by Wilson in making the report. Gainer’s failure to challenge the district court’s evidentiary decision on this basis renders the issue waived. See United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n. 3 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.