FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 10, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12519 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 8 0 0 1 1
- CR
- KLR U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O N A L D L E E R A Z Z , a .k .a . K ilo , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 10, 2007) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R ona l d R a z z appe a l s hi s c onv i ct i o ns a nd l i f e s e nt e nc e f

orm a i nt a i ni ng a dru g - i nvol ve d pr e m i s e s ( C ountO ne ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 856; pos s e s s i ngSee Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 1 We a reun pers uade d b y

Razz’s c on sti tutiona l c halleng e s, un der theF if th, Sixth, and

Ei ghth 2 Amendments, to 21 U.S.C. § 851. 2 w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 5 0 g r a m s o rm o r e o f c o c a in e b a s e ( C o u n t T w o ) , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b)( 1) ( A ) a nd 851; a nd pos s e s s i ng w i th i nt e nt t o di s tr i but e 5 gr a m s o r m o re of c oc a i ne ba s e ( C ountT hr e e ) , i n vi ol a t i on of § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ,( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) a n d 8 5 1 . O n ap p e a l , R a z z a r g u e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in thr e e w a y s : ( 1) by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s i nc r i m i na t i ng s t a t e m e n t s he
m a d e b o th b e f

o r e a n d a f

te rh e r e c e iv e d M ir a n d a w a r n in g s ; ( 2 ) b y d e n y in g h is 1
m o t i o n s fo r d i scl o su re o f th e i d en t i ty o f th e co n f id en t i al i n fo rm an t(“ C I”), w h o se c ontr ol l e d buy s of

c oc a i ne ba s e f

r om R a z z f

or m e d the ba s i s of

the sear c h w a r r a nt of R a z z ’ s r e s i de nc e , a nd t o pr oduc e the C I f ora n i n t ervi e w ; a nd ( 3) by a dm i tt i ng t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the C I ’ s c ontr ol l e d buy s a ttr i a l . A f t e rthoro u g h rev i e w of

the 2
r e c o r d a n d c a r e f

u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , w e a f f i r m. T he part i es ar e f

am i l i arw i th t he re l evantfa ct s a nd w e on ly su m m ar i ze them here . D uri ng a s er i es o f d ates in Ja nu ary 200 5, offi ce rs ob se rved the C I e nt er r e s i de nc e s a tP e nny L a ne a nd S t a c e y S tr e e ta nd e xi tthe r e s i de n ces af t e rpur c ha s i ng abou t10 gram s of c ra ck cocai ne ea ch t i m e. T hese bu ys w er e use d t o o bt ai n sea rc h
w a r r an t s of

both pr e m i s e s . T he w a r r a nt s w e r e e xe c ut e d on F e brua r y 3, 2005. P r i ort o the s e a r c h of R a z z ’ s r e s i de nc e a tS t a c e y S tr e e t , F e de r a l B ur e a u of3

I nve s t i ga t i on ( “ F B I ” ) S pe c i a l A ge ntJ ohn M a c V e i gh r e a d the w a rran t t o R a z z a nd t ol d R az z thati f a ny drug s w er e f ou nd i n t he re si dence, b o th R az z an d h i s w i fe , T a m ik a S im m s , w o u ld b e a r r e s te d , to w h ic h R a z z r e s p o n d e d th a t a n y n a r c o tic s in the ho use bel on ged t o h i m , no tS i m m s. R az z re peat ed hi s s t at em entt o ano ther of f i c e r , B r i a n H e r m a ns on, a f t e rt he s e a r c h ha d c om m e nc e d. D ur i ng the s e a r c he s of R az z’ s r es i dences on P enny L ane a nd S t ac ey S tre et , l aw enforce m entdi sc ov er ed the f ol l ow i ng: s e ve n boxe s of ba ki ng so d a; r a z orbl a de s ; pl a t e s , pot s , pa ns , a nd bow l s w i th c oc a i ne r e s i due on the m ; thr e e m e t a l s poons w i th c oc a i n e resi d u e on the m ; a di gi t al scal e; a nd l oos e r oc ks of c r a c k c oc a i ne . U pon c om pl e t i on of the S t ac ey S tre etse ar ch, R az z w as arre st ed an d tra nspo rt ed t o t he sher i ff’ s off i ce , w he r e he m a de s t a t e m e nt s , a f t e rM i r a nda w arn i n g s w e r e gi ve n, tha the w a s a drug de a l e ra nd m a nuf

a c tur e d crack coc a i ne . R a z z the n m a de m or e i nc r i m i na t i ng co m m ent s the fol l ow i ng day, w hi l e bei ng tra nspo rt ed t o h i s i ni t i al appeara nce, r e g a r d in g h is s e llin g a n d m a n u f a c tu r in g a c tiv itie s . P ri o r t o tri al , R azz m o v ed t o su p p res s a ll o f h i s i n cri m i n at i n g st at em en t s. A ft era m agi stra t e ju d g e co nd uct ed evi dent i ary hea ri ng s on t he m ot i on , the di stri ct c o u r t u ltim a te ly d e n ie d s u p p r e s s io n , c o n c lu d in g th a t R a z z ’s s ta te m e n ts w e r e a ll
a dm i s s i bl e . T he c our tr e aso n ed tha t , a l though the s t a t e m e ntt o M a c V e i gh w a s the p r o d u c t o f

a n u n w a r n e d c u s to d ia l in te r r o g a tio n , it w a s n e v e r th e le s s a d m is s ib le4

b ec au se itw as v o lu n tarily m ad e, an d ac co rd in g ly, th er e w as n o ta in t o n R az z’s
su b seq u en ts ta te m e n ts . A l t ern at i v el y, th e d i stri ctco u rtfo u n d th at , ev en i f th e fi rst s ta te m e n t w a s n o t a d m is s ib le , th e r e w a s a s u f f ic ie n t b r e a k in th e s tr e a m o f e v e n ts s uc h tha ta ny t ai n tw oul d ha ve di s s i pa t e d, the r e by r e nde r i ng a l l s ubs e que nt st at em ent s, i ncl ud i ng the on e t o H erm anson, adm i ss i bl e. R a z z a ls o f

ile d p r e tr ia l m o tio n s f

o rd is c lo s u r e o f

th e C I ’s id e n tity a n d to pr oduc e the C I fo r an i nt e r vi e w . R a z z a r gue d tha the pl a nne d t o a s s e r ta the or y of defe nse bas ed on m i si dent i fi ca t io n , th at is , thathe w as no ti n the re si dences w hen the c ontr o l l e d buy s t ook pl a c e . T hus , he a s s e r t e d, he w a s e nt i t l e d t o i nt e r vi e w the C I, w h o w as th e o n l y eyew i tn ess t o th e ev en t s th att o o k p l ace i n si d e th e resi d en ces. T h e g o v er n m en t r e s p o n d ed th at d isclo su re w as n o t w ar ra n ted b ec au se th e C I’s t e s t i m ony a nd obs e r va t i ons w e r e notr e l e va ntt o t h e c a s e , i n w hi c h the gove r nm e nt i nt e nde d t o i ntr oduc e at t ri a l onl y the obs e r va t i ons of the pol i c e of

f i c e r s w ho
c onduc t e d the s ur ve i l l a nc e of the r e si d en ces . M or e ove r , the gove r nm e nt c o n te n d e d , R a z z ’s a r g u m e n t th a t a n i n t e r v ie w w ith th e C I w o u ld f u r th e rh is
m i s i de nt i f

i c a t i on de f

e ns e w a s m e r e s pe c ul a t i on. A tan evi dent i ary hea ri ng , the m agi stra t e j ud ge he ar d th e t es t i m on y of R az z, w ho cl ai m ed he w as no ti n t he re si dences du ri ng the cont rol l ed bu ys ; S peci al A gentD avi d W i l son, w ho ob se rved the C I app roac h t h e re sid ence s a nd R az z open5

th e do or; and S peci al A gentM ac V ei gh . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge al so cond uct ed an i n c a m e r a he a r i ng w i th the s pe c i a l a ge nt s . I n hi s R & R , th e m a gi s tr a t e j udge
r e c om m e nde d tha tR a z z’ s m o t i ons r e l a t i ng t o the C I be de ni e d ba s e d on the f ol l ow i ng f

i ndi ngs : ( 1) the gove r n m en t j u st i f i e d i t s non- di s c l os ur e by s how i ng a r e a l a n d s u b s ta n tia l r is k o f h a r m to th e C I ; ( 2 ) th e C I d id n o t p la y a d ir e c t r o le in the c r i m i n al co n d u c tc ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt ; a nd ( 3) the C I c oul d notpr ovi de any t es t i m on y thatw ou l d ass i stR az z i n d ef endi n g ag ain stthe i nd i ct ed cond uct , as a m i s i de nt i f

i c a t i on de f

e ns e w oul d notbe r e l a t e d t o hi s pos s e s s i on of drugs ordrug pa r aphe r na l i a . R e l y i ng on the s a m e gr ounds , the m a gi s tr at e re c om m e nde d de ny i ng R a z z ’ s m ot i on t o pr oduc e the C I f ora n i nt e r vi e w . O ve r R a z z ’ s obj e c t i ons , the di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e j u d g e’ s r e c om m e nda t i ons a s t o the m ot i ons re l at i ng t o t he C I. A ft er a j ury tri al , R az z w as conv i ct ed of al l three coun t s. W it h an ad just ed offe nse l evel o f 3 7 an d a c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory V I ( base d b ot h o n 1 8 cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s a nd R az z’ s s t atus as a c ar ee r off ender, U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1.1 ), R az z f a c e d a n ad v i so r y G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 360 m onths ’ t o l i f

e i m pr i s onm e nt . T he di stri ct co urtse nt ence d h i m t o a t erm of 24 0 m on ths on C ou ntO ne, a t erm of l i fe i m pr i s onm e nto n C ountT w o, a nd a t e r m of 360 m onths on C ountT hr e e , w i th the
s e nt e nc e s t o run c onc ur r e nt l y . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d.Mo r e o v e r , i nh i s i n i t i a lb ri e f , R az za s s e r

t s n o argum e ntan d

c i t e s n o l e g a la

uth o ri ty 3 addre ssing the district c ourt’s alternative finding that the subsequent statements, including theone made to Hermanson, who testified without objec tion at the defendant’s trial, were voluntary and not tainted by the first. Rather , he focuses his analysis solely on th e adm i s s i b i lity

of the pre -sea

rch 6 O n ap p eal , R azz fi rst arg u es th at th e d i stri ct co u rt erred b y d en yi n g h is
m o t i o n t o su p p ress th e st at em en t s h e m a d e to l aw en fo rcem en t . M o re sp eci fi cal l y, he chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on the supp re ss i on of hi s pre -s ea rc h
s t a t e m e ntt o S pe c i a l A ge ntM a c V e i g h, i n w hi c h he s a i d tha ta ny thi ng f ound i n the S t acey S treetresi d en ce b el o n g ed t o h i m an d n o th i s w i fe. R a z z arg u es th atb ecau se the di s tr i c tc our tf

ound the s t a t e m e ntw a s the pr oduc tof a c us t odi a l i nt e r r o g at i on and m ade before he re ce i ved M iran d a w arni ng s, the st at em entshou l d h ave been
su p p ressed , i rresp ect i v e o f w h eth e r it w a s v o l u n t ari l y m ad e. W e d ecl i n e t o ad d ress th is c la im s in c e o u rr e v ie w o f th e tr ia l tr a n s c r ip t r e v e a l s t h a t th e s ta te m e n t to M ac V ei gh w as never adm i tt ed at trial. A cc ordi ng l y, even i f the di stri ctcourterre d i n i t s a nal ys i s of R az z’ s pre -tri al m ot io n to supp re ss , any r es ul t i ng error w as unque s t i ona bl y ha r m l e s s b eyo n d a r e a s ona bl e doubtbe c a us e the de c i s i on on the
m ot i on t o s uppr e s s c oul d notpos s i bl y ha ve co n t ri b ut e d t o R a z z ’ s c onvi c t i on, w he r e the j ur y n e ve rhe a r d the s t a t e m e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A rbol a e z , 450 F . 3d 12 83 , 12 92 (11t h C i r. 20 0 6 ) (h ol di ng thatthe re l evanti nq ui ry of w hether ad m i ss i on of

s t a t e m e nt s obt a i ne d i n vi ol a t i on of M i r a nda i s ha r m l e s s e r r orde pe nds
on w hether the evi dence possi bl y c on tri bu t ed t o t he defendant ’ s c on vi ct i on ). 3statement h emad etoM a c V e igh . Weh av ef o un d th at, wh e r ea

p arty mer e ly ma k e s a p assing ref erence to a

n issue with no arguments on its merits, the issue is deemed w aived or abandone d. See United States v. J ernig an, 341 F.3d 1273, 1284 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (holdingissue abandone d where, although the def

endant madepassingref

erences to issue in brief

, the reference s wereundertaken as background t o claims that he e xpressly advanc ed); Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alaba ster, 881 F .2d 15 70 , 1 57 3 n . 6 (1 1th

Cir . 1 98 9) (deemingiss ueno t argue d o n a pp e a l w aive d, and

no tin gthat a passingref

erence on a

ppeal to the i ssue was insufficient to properly raise it); see also United States v. Mag luta, 418 F.3d 1166, 1185-86 (11th Cir. 2005) (c oncludingthat defendant aba ndoned issue that was raised for f

irst time in reply

brief) , cer

t. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2966 ( 2 0 0 6 ). Gi v en Razz’s decision not to challeng e the admissibi lity of the other

s t at em en t s on appeal, we nee d not, and do no t, a naly ze t hea dmi ssibil ity

of theoth e r s tate ments .

7 R a z z a l s o c ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tco u rt ’ s a na l y s i s of hi s pr e - tr i a l m ot i ons co n cerni ng the C I ’ s i de nt i ty . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on f ora bus e of di s c r e t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G ut i e r r e z , 931 F . 2d 1482, 1490 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( r e vi e w i ng de n i a l of

am ot i on t o di s c l os e the i de nt i ty of a C I f ora bus e of d is c r e tio n ) . T h e g o v e r n m e n t’s p r iv ile g e to w ith h o ld th e d is c lo s u r e o f “th e id e n tity
o f p e r s o n s w h o f

u r n is h in f

o r m a tio n o f

v io la tio n s o f

la w to o f

f ic e r s c h a r g e d w ith
e nf or c e m e ntof

tha tl a w ” i s w e l l
- e s t a b l i sh e d. S e e R ovi a r o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 353 U .S . 5 3 , 5 9 ( 1 9 5 7 ) . W h e r e th e d is c lo s u r e o f a C I ’s id e n tity is r e le v a n t o rh e lp f u l to the de f e nse o f an accu s e d, ori s e s s e nt i a l t o a f a i rde t e r m i na t i on of

a c a us e , the go vernm ent ’ s pri vi l ege m ustgi ve w ay . I d. at60 -61. T hi s bal anci ng t es tre qu i re s the c ons i de r a t i on of

thr e e f a c t or s : ( 1) the e xt e ntof the C I ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the
cr im in al ac ti v ity; (2 ) th e d irec tn es s o f th e r elatio n sh ip b etw ee n th e d ef en d an t’ s as se rted d ef

en se an d th e p ro b ab le testim o n y o f th e C I; an d (3 ) th e g o v er n m en t’ s8

i nt er es ti n n on di sc l osure. G ut i erre z, 93 1 F . 2d at14 90 (e xp ou n d in g o n R ov i ar o b a la n c in g te s t) . I t is th e d e f

e n d a n t’s b u r d e n to e s ta b lis h th a t a C I ’s te s tim o n y “w o u ld
s i gni f i c a n t l y a i d i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a n a s s e r t e d d e f e n s e . ” U n i t e d St a t e s v. T enori o-A ng el , 75 6 F . 2d 15 05 , 15 1 1 (1 1 th C i r. 19 85 ) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on s om i tt ed). W e ha ve f

ound tha ta de f

e nda nt ’ s “ [ m ] e r e c onj e c tur e ors uppos i t i on ab o utthe p o s s i b l e r e l e v a n c y o f th e i n f o r ma n t ’ s t e s t i mo n y ” i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f

y t he R ovi a r o t e s ta nd w a r r a ntdi s c l os ur e . I d. A gai n, R az z w as i nd i ct ed on on e c ou ntof m ai nt ai ni ng a drug-i nv ol ved prem i se s a nd tw o cou nt s of po ss es si ng w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne base . N o t ab l y, h e w as n o tch arg ed w i th cri m es s te m m in g fro m th e d ru g b u ys th em sel v es. C f. R ov i ar o, 35 3 U . S . at62 -64 (fi nd i ng di sc l osure w arra nt ed w here char ges w er e base d o n d rug sal e i n w hi ch C I w as i nv ol ved). O n t he fi rs tR ov i ar o fac t or, R az z h a s n o t m e t h is b u r d e n . T h e C I ’s c o n t r o l l e d b u y s p la y e d n o d ir e c t r e la tio n s h ip to the c r i m i na l c onduc tfo r w h i c h R a z z w a s c ha r ge d, butr a the rs e r ve d s ol e l y a s the ba s i s t o s e c ur e the s e a r c h w a r r a nt s o f R a z z ’ s r e s i de nc e s . C f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A lf o n so , 5 5 2 F . 2 d 6 0 5 , 6 1 8 (5 th C i r. 1 9 7 7 ) (h o l d i n g th at d i scl o su re o f C I u sed to s e c ur e a w i r e t ap o rde rw a s notr e qui r e d, a s C I di d notpa r t i c i pa t e i n the a c t i vi ty f or w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c h a r g e d ) .9

T ur ni ng t o the seco n d f a c t or , R a z z ha s nots how n tha tthe C I ’ s t e s t i m ony w o u ld a id h im in d e f

e n d in g a g a in s t th e c h a r g e d c r im e s . E v e n i f t h e C I w o u ld t e s t i f y tha tR a z z w a s notpr e s e ntdur i ng the drug bu y s - - a w hol l y s pe c ul a t i ve p r o p o s itio n - - R a z z ’s m is id e n tif ic a tio n d e f

e n s e s im p ly is n o t r e l a t e d to h is po ss es si on of the cont raband drug s an d d rug p ar aphernal i a di sc ov er ed athi s hom e. T he C I’ s t es t i m on y i n sup po rtof such a defe nse w ou l d h ave n o ef fe ct, letal on e a be ne f i c i a l e f f e c t , on R a z z ’ s de fen se a ga i ns tthe c ha r ge d c r i m e s , w hi c h di d not i nc l ude the drug s a l e s t o the C I . M or e ove r , R a z z ’ s s ugge s t e d de f e ns e w oul d not
co n trad i ctth e o v erw h el m i n g o th er ev i d en ce o f h i s g u ilt, i n cl u d i n g h i s co n fessi o n s, and t he drug paraph ernal i a di sc ov er ed athi s r es i dence. C f. G ut i erre z, 9 3 1 F . 2d at 14 91 (f i nd i ng di sc l os u re no tw arra nt ed af t erconcl ud i ng that , al tho ug h t he C I w as the onl y w i tne s s w ho c oul d r e f ut e of f i c e r ’ s t e s t i m ony , the de f e nda ntf a i l e d t o s how tha tthe C I ’ s t e s t i m ony w o u l d co ntr a di c tove r w he l m i ng othe re vi de nc e of the defe nd ant ’ s gui l t ). T h e la s t f

a c to rto c o n s id e r u n d e rR o v ia r o is th e g o v e r n m e n t’s in te r e s t in
n o n d i s c l os ur e . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound, a f t e ra n i n c a m e r a c onf

e r e nc e w i th the
s p e c ia l a g e n ts , th a t th e r is k to th e C I w a s r e a l a n d s u b s t a n tia l if h is id e n tity w e r e to b e d is c lo s e d . A s th e ap p e lla n t, it is R a z z ’s r e s p o n s ib ility to p e r f e c t th e ap p e lla te reco rd . S ee G u t i errez, 93 1 F . 2 d at1 4 9 1 . (“ Iti s el em en t ar y th atap p el l an t s m u st10

perf ec tthe re cord so as t o sup po rtthe i ss ues w hi ch they pre se nton appeal . ”) ; V a ughn v. B r i tt on, 740 F . 2d 833, 835 (1 1 t h C i r . 1984) ( “ I ti s the duty of the
appe l l antt o pe r f

e c thi s appe a l by s e e i ng tha ta c om pl e t e r e c or d i s f i l e d i n the
ap p e lla te c o u r t w h ic h r e f le c ts th e p o in ts u p o n w h ic h h e s e e k s r e v ie w .” ) . A l though w e a r e una bl e t o r e vi e w the i n cam era pr oc e e di ngs , w e ha ve re vi ew ed the i ss ue i n l i gh tof the re pres ent at i on s m ade i n t he bri ef s and the di stri ct court ’ s s t at em ent s i n o pen cou rt . G ut i erre z, 93 1 F . 2d at14 91 (on t hi rd R o v i aro fact o r, w h ere ap p el l an t s fai l ed t o i n cl u d e i n th e reco rd o n ap p eal sea le d in
ca m er a a ff

id av it s, re v iew in g re p re se n tati o n s in b rief s a n d d istrict co u rt’s
s t a t e m e nt s a nd di s c e r ni ng no a bu se o f d i scre t i on i n de ni a l of m ot i on t o c om pe l the go vernm entt o d i sc l ose i dent i ty of C I) . O n t he re cord b ef o re u s, w e a re sa t i sf

i ed th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d is c r e tio n b y d en yi n g th e m o t i o n t o d i scl o se th e C I ’ s i d e n t i ty o rR a z z ’ s r e l a t e d m o t i o n t o p r o d u c e th e C I f o ra n i n t e r v i e w. F in al l y, R azz arg u es th e d i stri ct co u rt erred b y al l o w i n g th e g o v ern m e n t to pres en t tes ti m o n y abo utthe C I a nd the C I’ s c on trol l ed bu ys of cr ac k cocai ne at Ra z z ’ s r e s i d e n c e s . W e r e v i e w a di s t r i c tc our t ’ s r ul i ng on t he a dm i s s i on of
e vi de nc e f

o ra b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . U n i t e d St a t e s v . J i mi n e z , 2 2 4 F. 3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 249 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) . “[ W ] h en em p l o yi n g an ab u se-o f-d i scret i o n st an d ard , w e m u st a ffi rm u n l e s s w e f

i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha s m a de a c l e a re r r orof j udgm e nt , or11

ha s appl i e d the w r ong l e ga l s t an d ard . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r a z i e r , 387 F . 3d 1244, 1 2 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 5 S .C t. 2 5 1 6 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . R a z z a s s e r ts th a t te s t i m o n y a b o u t th e C I a n d th e C I ’s c o n tr o lle d b u y s s h o u ld have be e n e xc l ud e d u nd e rRul e 40 3 o f the Fe de r a l Rul e s of

Evi de nc e , w hi ch p r o v id e s th a t“e v id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is s u b s ta n tia lly
o u twe i g h e d b y th e d a n g e ro f u n f a i rp r e j u d i c e . ” I n r e v i e wi n g a R u l e 4 0 3 i s s u e , we v i ew “ th e ev i d en ce i n a l i g h t m o st fav o rab l e t o i t s ad m i ssi o n , m ax i m iz in g its pr oba t i ve va l ue a nd m i ni m i z i ng i t s undue pr e j udi c i a l i m pa c t . ” U ni t ed S t at e s v. J e r n ig a n , 3 4 1 F . 3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . “R u le 4 0 3 is
a n e xtr a or di na r y r e m e dy w hi c h s houl d be used o n l y s pa r i ngl y s i nc e i tpe r m i t s the tr i a l c our tt o e xc l ud e co n ced ed l y pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hur c h, 9 5 5 F .2 d 6 8 8 , 7 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . A n d w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d t h a ta n y u n f a ir pr e j udi c e r e s ul t i ng f

r om the a dm i s s i on of

pr ob at i ve e vi de nc e m a y be m i t i ga t e d by a l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on . U ni t ed S t at es v . C ald eron , 12 7 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 33 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) .H ere , the t e s t i m ony a boutthe C I ’ s drug buy s i n R a z z ’ s r e s i de nc e s on P e nny L ane a nd St a c e y Str e e tw a s r e l e va ntt o s ho w tha tRa z z ma i nt a i ne d adrug - i nv ol ved pr e m i s e s , a s c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd t h at t h e d i s c ove r i e s of c ontr a ba nd a nd drug paraph ernal i a on h i s pre m i se s w er e noti sol at ed i nci de n ts. W e a re sa t i sf i edEven if wefound an a buse of discretion, any

error would be ha

rmless, in light of the 4 overwhelming other evidence of Razz ’s guilt, including his confe ssions, and the discover y of drug para phernalia at his residenc e, sug g estingthat he wa s running a cr ac k cocaine manufacturing operation. Cf. United States v. Harriston, 329 F.3d 779, 789 (11th Cir. 2003) (notingthat an er ror in admitting evidenc e is harmless where there is over whelmingevidenc e of guilt). 12 tha ta ny pr e

j udi c e R a z z s ugge s t s he s uf f e r e d w a s a de qua t e l y m i t i ga t e d by the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on t o the j ur y t o be a ri n m i nd, w he n de c i di ng the
ca se , thatthe C I did n o t tes t i fy . Q ui t e s i m pl y, on the re cord before us, R az z has
no tes t abl i shed an abuse of di sc re t i on re l at i ng t o t he t es t i m on y abo utthe cont rol l ed d ru g b u ys. 4 AF F I RME D.