FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Jun e 2 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1525 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00268 -CR- BE -S UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us OLIVER COLEMAN, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N o rth e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 2, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit PE R CU RIA M: Inthi s a ppe al , O liv er

Co le m anse ek s th e va catio n of his c onvi ct ionof co nspi ra cy

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te and t o di str ibu te D ila udi d pi lls , inIn h is r e ply br ie f, Col e man c ha lle ng e s his se nte nc e un de r B lake ly v. Was hin g ton , 5 42 U. S. 1

_ _ _ , 1 2 4 S . C t . 2 5 3 1 , 1 5 9 L . E d . 2 d 4 0 3 (2 0 0 4 ). He d i d

ra i s e t h e B l ak el y

i s s u e i na p ro s e f

i l i n g, which, in ef

fec t, supplemented his attorney ’s i nitial brief. This cour t’s Clerk’s Of

fice , howeve r, r e f u s e d t o a c c e p tC o l e m an ’ s p r o s e s u p p l e m e n t a l f

i l i n gb e c a u s e h e w a s r e p r e s e n t e d

b y c o un s e l . In sum, Coleman failed to pre sent his Blake ly challeng e in his initial brie f, and it has been a bandoned. See Un ited States v. Docke ry , 401 F.3d 1261, 1262- 63 (11th Cir. 2005) (holdingthat appellant a bando ne d h is B oo ke r c la im o n a pp e a l by no t r a isi nga

tim e ly c on sti tut ion a l c ha lle ng e to h is sentenc e in his initi al brief ). 2 vio latio n of

21 U . S. C. § 84 6, and a

ne wtr ia l. H e is e nti tle d to ane wtr ia l, he

1 co nte nds, be ca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr one ousl y a dm itt ed int o e vid en ce atr an sc ri pt of ata pe d ph one c onve rs at ionthat i nc lud ed asy nops is p re pare d by

the Governm ent identify ing hi m as the suppli er of the dr

ugs. Bec ause Colem an failed to o bj ec t t o th e intro duc tio n of the tr an sc ri pt, w e re vie wit s pr es en ce be fo re the j ur y onl y f or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. O lano, 507 U . S. 725 , 731 -3 2, 113 S.Ct . 17 70 , 17 76 , 12 3 L.Ed .2d50 8 (1 99 3) . W e m ay vacate a conviction for plain err or if (1) an err or occurre d, that (2) w as pla in, ( 3) a ff

ec te d th e de fe ndant’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts, and ( 4) “ se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty

or pub lic r ep utatio n of

j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ” I d. a t 73 2- 36, 113 S. Ct . a t 17 77- 79. C ole m anpoi nts us t o no r ule of lawthat sp ec if

ic al ly pr ec lud es the a dm iss ionint o e vid en ce of atr an sc ri pt p re fa ce d by

an arg uably pr ej udi ci al gov er

nm en t- pr ep ar ed

sy nops is. I n hi s br ie f, Co le m anc ite s no precedent indicating that th e introduction of the transcript into evidence co nst itute d e rr or . I t f

oll ow s, the n, that the a dm iss ionof the tr an sc ri pt, if3

er ro ne ous, w as not

pla inl y e rr one ous. F ina lly , Co le m anf ai ls t o sh owus h owthi s ev id en ce af

fect edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. AFFIR MED.