[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 14 62 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 03 61 -RWS-AJB- 13 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOSE EDENILSON-REYES, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-14628 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 1 of 3Defen da nt ’s cha ll en ge , un de r Fed .R.Evi d. 4 10 , to th e adm is si bi li ty of a

st at em en t m ad e b y

de fen dantina pl ea p ro fferwas n otpre se rv edinth e d is tri ct co urt, an d t he refo re i s re vi ewedon ap pe al on ly for p la in erro r. Duri ng hi s d ire ct te st im on y at t ria l, the de fen da ntto ldth e jury tha t h e d idno t kno w whatwas i ns id e th e su it cas e, bu t o m it te d a ny referen ce t o t he factth atth e co -wo rk er wh o a sk ed hi m to de li ve r th e su it cas e h adpre vi ou sl y ask edhi m

to tra ns po rt c oc ai ne . At th e be nc h c on fere nc e b efo re the pro se cu ti on in tro du cedde fen dant ’s st at em en t t o t ha t effe ctfro m

th e p le a p ro ffer , def

en se co un se l re ced edfro m hi s p rio r po si ti on th at th e co nt en t o f de fen da nt ’s st at em en ts inth e p le a p ro ffer co ul d n otbe us edincro ss ex am in at io n. Defe ns e co un se l m od ifi edhi s p os it io n, ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t de fen da nt ’s st at em en ts inth e p le a p ro fferco ul d b e u se d i n c ro ss -ex am in at io n, b ut th atth e p ro se cu to r sh ou ldno t re fer t o s uc h s ta te m en ts as h av in g b eeninth e co nt ex t o f a p le a p ro fferor i n p le a n eg ot ia ti on s. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud ge rul ed witho utob

jecti on th atth e co nt en t o f de fen da nt ’s pro fferst at em en t was ap pr op ria te fo r cro ss -ex am in at io n, b utth atth e p ro se cu to r co ul d n otrefe r to th e co nt ex t o f th e pl ea p ro fferit se lf o r th e p le a n eg ot ia ti on s. Onap pe al , def en da ntno w cha ll en ge s th e adm is si bi li ty of th e co nt en t o f de fen da nt ’s pre vi ou s s ta te m en t i n t he pl ea pr of fer, the pre ci se gro un d t o wh ic h t he re was no ob jecti on at t he be nc h co nf eren ce. Ev enif the re were erro r, itwas n otpl ai n e rro r. Defen da ntcit es no cas e 2 Case: 11-14628 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 2 of 3su gg es ti ng th ere was ob vi ou s erro r, an d d efen da ntha s n otest ab li sh edth at

adm is si on of t he st at em en t af fect edth e o ut co m e o f th e p ro ceed in gs or s eri ou sl y affe ct edth e fai rn es s, i nt eg rity or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Defen da nt ’s cha ll en ge to th e le ga li ty of th e st op of h is tru ck , andth e se iz ur e of a su it cas e fu ll of c urren cy is witho utm eri t. The re was pro babl e cau se ba se d up on th e cu m

ul at iv e in fo rm at io n i n the po ss es si onof g ov ern m en t ag en ts ab ou t the drug co ns pi racy andth e in fo rm at io n c on ne ct in g d efen da ntth eret o fr om th e se ve ral in te rcep te d t el ep ho ne cal ls be twee n d efen da ntan d Dan ie l wh os e te le ph on e was be in g t ap pe d p ur su an t t o p ro babl e cau se an d awarran t. Mo reo ve r, th ere was als o reas on ab le su sp ic io n fo r th e st op , andva li d c on se ntforth e se arch . The ot he r arg um en ts of d efen da nton ap pe al are wh ol ly w it ho utm eri t, an d warra ntno furth er d is cu ss io n. AFFIR MED.

3 Case: 11-14628 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 3 of 3