FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 65 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -2 25 02 -J EM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us ONE RENEGA DE GO-FAST VESSEL, Reg is te redas F L 01 74 NR an d In ve nt ory , Defen da nt , VLADIMIR PR IETO, Cl ai m an t - Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 11 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Vlad im ir P rie to ap pe al s t he civ il for fei ture i n re m of h is ve ss el , th e One Ren eg ad e Go- Fas t Ves se l, p ur su an t t o 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 4( a), (b ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af

firm . The Uni te d S ta te s C oa stGuar d o bs erv edth e v es se l o ff the co as t o f Fl or id a tra ve li ng at ahi gh rat e o f sp eedan d wi th ou t ac ti va te d ru nn in g l ig ht s. Offi cers in te rcep te d t he ve ss el an d d is co ve red2 cr ew m em be rs , 31 un do cu m en te d C ub an al ie ns , andanex ces si ve am ou ntof f ue l. The crew m em

be rs pl ead edgu il ty to co ns pi rin g a ndatt em

pt in g t o s m

ug gl e al ie ns in to th e Uni te d S ta te s, i n v io la ti on of se ct io n 1 32 4( a). The go ve rn m en t s ou gh t fo rfei tu re o f th e v es se l p ur su an t t o s ect io n 1 32 4( b) ; an d P rie to fil eda cl ai m

of i nt eres t as th e v es se l’s o wne r. He, inpa rt, a ss ert edth at he kn ew no th in g abo utth e v es se l b ei ng us edforil le ga l p ur po se s an d, thu s, was an in no cen t o wne r. Aftera tr ia l, the jury returne d asp eci al ve rd ic t fi nd in g tha t the ve ss el was u se d t o fa ci li ta te th e co m m is si onof a li ensm

ug gl in g a ndth atPri et o was no t an in no cen t o wne r. At tria l, the co urt ad m it te d i nt o e vi de nc e th e tr an sc rip ts of t he pl ea co ll oqui es an d c riminal jud gm en ts of t he ve ss el ’s two crew m em be rs . On ap pe al , Pri et o arg ue s tha t the co urt erredinadm it ti ng th is ev id en ce as st at em en ts ag ai ns t in te res t u nd er Fe d.R .Evi d. 8 04 (b )(3 ) be cau se th e g ov ern m en t d idno t es tabl is h t ha t 2th e d ecl aran ts were u na va il ab le .

Inth e d is tri ctco urt, Pri et o o bjec te d t o the adm is si on of t he ev id en ce o n gr ou nd s t ha t the st at em en ts co nt ai ne d i n t he trans cri pt s an d ju dg m en ts di d n ot co ns ti tu te st at em en ts ag ai ns t p en al in te res t. He m ad e n o o bjec ti on s ab ou t the un av ai labi li ty of de cl aran ts . To p res erv e anis su e fo r ap pe al , a pa rty “ m us t fi rs t * cl earl y pre se ntitto th e d is tri ctco urt . . . insu ch a way as t o a ffo rdth e d is tri ct co urt an op po rtu ni ty to re co gn iz e an d ru le on it .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Land , 16 3 F .3d 12 95 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . And , exc ep t u nd er s pe ci al ci rcu m st an ces no t p res en t h ere, we wi ll no t co ns id er i ss ue s ra is edforth e fi rs t t im e on ap pe al . Acces s No w, Inc . v. Sw. Airl in es Co ., 38 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Becau se Pri et o d idno t p res erv e h is arg um en t ab ou t the un av ai labi li ty of th e cre w m em

be rs inth e d is tri ctco urt, we wi ll no t co ns id er i t n ow. Pri et o a ls o c ha ll en ge s t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce. He arg ue s t ha t (1 ) in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce ex is te d t o s ho w th atth e v es se l was in vo lv edinth e co m m is si on of acri m in al off

en se an d (2 ) su ffi ci en t ev id en ce ex is te d fo r th e jury to fin d t ha t h e was anin no cen t o wne r of th e v es se l. Bu t Pr ie to pre se rv edne it he r of th es e ch al le ng es forap pe al . Und er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 50 (a), a p arty m ay ch al le ng e th e The g overnme nt filed a memora ndum about its int ent to introduce the pertinent c ourt * rec ords and indicated spec ifically that the two cr ew membe rs wer e unava ilable bec ause the y had invoked their F ifth Amendment privileg e ag ainst self-incrimination. 3su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce b efo re the cas e is subm it te d t o t he jury; andRu le 50 (b )

“ se ts forth th e p ro cedur al requi rem en ts forren ewin g asu ffi ci en cy . . . ch al le ng e aft er the jury ve rd ic t an d e ntry of ju dg m en t.” Un ithe rm

Fo odSy s., In c. v. Swi ftEckric h, In c., 12 6 S .Ct. 9 80 , 98 5 (2 00 6) . Whe n aparty fail s t o fi le a po st -v erd ic t m ot io n, p ur su an t t o R

ul e 5 0( b) , we are “ witho utpo wer t o d ire ctth e Dis tri ctCo urt to en te r jud gm en t co nt rary to t he on e itha d p erm it te d t o s ta nd ,” orto gra nta ne w tri al . Id. at98 5, 9 88 . Pri et o m ov edforjud gm en t as a m atte r of law o nl y at t he clo se of t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se inch ie f an d n ev er ren ewedth e m ot io n o r fi le d am ot io n fo r a ne w tri al aft er the ve rd ic t, as requi red . Andhi s o rig in al m ot io n a ss ert edon ly tha t th e g ov ern m en t fa il edto est ab li sh th atth e v es se l’s p as se ng ers were al ie ns , lac ki ng au th or iz at io n t o e nt er the Uni te d S ta te s, an d fa il edto m en ti onhi s i nn oc en t o wne r de fen se . See Do e v . Cel eb rity Cru is es , Inc ., 39 4 F .3d89 1, 9 03 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata “ ren ewal of am ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law und er Ru le 50 (b ) m us t b e b as edup on th e sa m e g ro un ds as t he ori gi na l re qu es t fo r jud gm en t as a m atte r of

law m ad e und er Ru le 50 (a) atth e cl os e o f th e ev id en ce an d p rio r to th e cas e b ei ng subm it te d t o t he jury”). Accord in gl y , we are p recl ud edfro m rev ie win g hi s s uf fic ie nc y arg um en ts on ap pe al . AFFIR MED. 4