[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 12479 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:11

- cr - 00404

- JA

- GJK

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v ersus LAVELL DASHAN BROWN, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (February 22, 2013) Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and FAY , Circuit Ju dges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Lavell Brown appeals his conviction on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21

Case: 12-12479 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 1 of 32 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal, he argues that on cross - examination the prosecutor vio lated the Federal Rules of Evidence by questioning him concerning his prior felony convictions, and th is resulted in an unfair trial.
We normally review for abuse of discretion a decision to admit evidence of prior convictions. United States v. Pritchard , 973 F.2d 905, 908 (11th Cir. 1992). However, if an argument is not raised before the district court, we review for plain

error only

. United States v. Bacon , 598 F.3d 772, 777 (11th Cir. 2010). The party challenging the error has the burden of demonst rating plain error on appeal. Id. Under plain error review, we will reverse only if the defendant establishes that: (1) there is an error; (2) the error is plain or obvious; (3) the error affects his substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affect s the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of a judicial proceeding. Id. A felony conviction less than 10 years old “must be admitted in a criminal case in which the witness is a defendant, if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudi cial effect to that defendant.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(B). Given the plain meaning of Rule 609, we conclude that no error resulted from the introduction of the prior felony convictions. Brown has failed to show that the convictions were more than 10 yea rs old or that the probative value of the evidence did not outweigh the prejudicial effect.

Case: 12-12479 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 2 of 33 Brown has not demonstrated plain error because he has failed to cite to a single case establishing that the questions asked by the prosecutor on cross

examination were improper

. Finally, even if plain error did occur, the error did not affect Brown’s substantial rights because of the overwhelming evidence against him at trial. See United State v. Lacayo , 758 F.2d 1559, 1565

- 66 (11th Cir. 1985). In this case, a w itness testified directly that he had an agreement with Brown to receive marijuana through the mail. Brown did not dispute that the packages were delivered to his home, and that he personally received at least one of the packages. Brown also did not disp ute that he gave to a member of the drug distribution ring a note with his address and the name “Richard Grant” in order to receive the packages. Additionally, Brown did not contest his three prior felony convictions, including one for drugs. Accordingly , we affirm Brown’s conviction

. AFFIRMED. Case: 12-12479 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 3 of 3