Erik Chavez-Trevino appeals from his jury-verdict conviction for importing into the United States five kilograms or more of a substance containing cocaine. He argues that the district court erred by refusing to grant his motion for a mistrial after a Government witness made a prejudicial remark during cross-examination. We review the district court’s denial of a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion. United, States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836, 844 (5th Cir. 1998).

Examination of the entire record shows that there is no significant possibility that the prejudicial evidence had a substantial impact upon the jury verdict. See id. Moreover, we accord considerable weight to the district court’s assessment that the striking of the remark and the curative instructions provided to the jury were sufficient to negate the prejudicial effect of the remark. See United States v. Nguyen, 28 F.3d 477, 483 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Chavez-Trevino’s motion for a mistrial on this basis.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.