*The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-3271WM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Nathaniel M. Graham, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 9, 1999

Filed: February 18, 1999 

_____________

Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,* District Judge.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

After intercepting a package of cocaine, the police conducted a controlled

delivery in Kansas City, Missouri. When an undercover officer attempted to deliver

the package, Nathaniel M. Graham’s minor child answered the door. Graham, who

was seated directly across the street from the address listed on the package, instructed

the undercover officer to leave the package with Graham’s minor child and an adult

would sign for it later. Following the delivery, the police executed an anticipatory

search warrant and seized the cocaine from Graham as he tried to flee. The district
-2-

court denied Graham’s pretrial motions, and a jury convicted Graham of attempting

to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. Graham appeals, and we affirm.

Initially, Graham contends the district court erroneously denied his motions to

quash the search warrant and suppress the cocaine and telephone bill seized during

the search. We disagree. The affidavit supporting the search warrant stated the

package contained cocaine and the police would not execute the warrant until after

delivery. Additionally, the search warrant stated the police could seize any evidence

showing occupancy and control of the residence, such as a utility bill. Under these

circumstances, the affidavit established probable cause to search for the cocaine, the

police reasonably relied on the warrant to seize Graham’s telephone bill, and the

district court correctly denied Graham’s motions. See United States v. Bieri, 21 F.3d

811, 815 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Tagbering, 985 F.2d 946, 949-50, 950-51

(8th Cir. 1993).

We also reject Graham’s other contentions. Graham argues the district court

wrongly denied his motion to suppress his post arrest statements because the

controlled delivery amounted to police deception and tainted the statements.

Contrary to Graham’s argument, the record shows the police did not resort to coercive

conduct or trickery. The police advised Graham of his Miranda rights three times,

and shortly after Graham waived his rights, he offered voluntary statements. Next,

Graham claims the district court improperly admitted evidence of his earlier drug

activity. The district court denied Graham’s pretrial motion in limine to exclude this

evidence, and his tactical decisions to forego an objection when the Government

offered the evidence at trial, to testify about his drug activity, and to challenge the

credibility of the Government’s witness on cross-examination, precludes review on

appeal. See United States v. Brown, 956 F.2d 782, 787 (8th Cir. 1992). Graham also

contends the police officer’s delivery of the package to Graham’s minor child was

outrageous conduct. Having examined the record, we conclude Graham failed to

show the officer’s conduct was fundamentally unfair. See United States v. Gleason,
-3-

980 F.2d 1183, 1186-87 (8th Cir. 1992). Graham was seated directly across the street

from the house during the delivery, Graham directed the officer to leave the package

with the child, and the officer merely followed Graham’s instructions.

Finally, although we generally do not consider arguments raised in pro se briefs

by a party represented by counsel, see United States v. Blum, 65 F.3d 1436, 1443 n.2

(8th Cir. 1995), we have considered Graham’s pro se arguments and conclude they

are either raised for the first time on appeal, without legal merit, or both. 

We affirm Graham’s conviction.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.