[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 83 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-1 40 78 -KMM -3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ALPHONSE PIERRE, 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 So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st7, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 1 of 10Alp ho ns e Pi erre ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi rin g t o a ndatt em pt in g t o im po rt f iv e k il og ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne , 21 U.S.C. § 9 63 , andco ns pi rin g t o po ss es s an d p os se ss in g wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e fi ve ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne , id . §§ 84 6, 8 41 (a)( 1) . Pierre ch al le ng es th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , th e ad m is si on of t es ti m on y an d o th er ev id en ce, an d e vi de nt ia ry rul in gs . W e aff irm. Thre e st an da rd s o f rev ie w go ve rnth is ap pe al . W e rev ie w de n ov o t he de ni al of ajud gm en t o f acqui tt al , andwe co ns tru e th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e g ov ern m en t. Un it edSta te s v . Pen a, 68 4 F .3d11 37 , 11 52 (11 th Ci r. 20 12 ). W e rev ie w th e ad m is si on of t es ti m on y an d o th er ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . W oo ds , 68 4 F .3d10 45 , 10 62 & n .17 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) ; Un it edSta te s v . Kenn ard , 47 2 F .3d85 1, 8 54 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Object io ns or arg um en ts th atare n otrai se d i n t he di st ric t co urt ar e rev ie wedfor pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hoffm an -Vai le , 56 8 F .3d13 35 , 13 40 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t err by den y in g P ie rre’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Suff

ic ie ntev id en ce es tabl is he d t ha t Pi erre , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof Ha it i, was in vo lv edina co ns pi racy to i m po rt a nddi st rib ut e co cai ne . Pierre an d h is gi rlf rie ndwere d is co ve redinth e m as te r st at ero om of abo atus edto sm

ug gl e th em 2 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 10an d t hr ee o th er al ie ns fro m th e Bah am as in to th e Uni te d S ta te s. In si de th e m as te r st at ero om , age nt s d is co ve redfou r wei gh ty pie ces of l ug ga ge co nt ai ni ng 78 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne , whi chtes ti ng lat er re ve al edwas 7 4 p erce ntpu re co cai ne an d co ul d b e d il ut edto in crea se th e qua nt it y to di st rib ut e. Agen ts sei zedfro m Pie rre a se t o f ke y s t ha t o pe ne d l oc ks on th e lu gg ag e, $2 ,60 0 i n US c urren cy , anda Bl ackbe rry

cel lu la r te le ph on e. Pie rre’s t el ep ho ne co nt ai ne d t ex t m es sa ge s tha t Pi erre ha d s en t t o h is wife an d aco nt actli stpro gr am m edwith s pe eddi al nu m be rs fo r fo ur co co ns pi rat or s: W id li ne Vaug hn ; a p ers on id en ti fie d a s M an no ; Gu y Deri lu s; an d P ie rre’s co us in , Luck so n M or in , who was atax ic ab op erat orli vi ng in Fl or id a. Agen ts arre st edDeri lu s an d M or inaft er the y m etth e b oa t ata do ckon th e St . Luci e Ri ve r in Stu art , Flo rid a. Agen ts als o a rres te d P ie rre a ndreco rd eda te le ph on e cal l tha t h e m ad e fro m jail in stru ct in g h is wife to co nt actVaug hn us in g th e te le ph on e num

be r pr og ramm edin to Pie rre’s ce ll ul ar t el ep ho ne . Duri ng tri al , Mo rin tes ti fie d t ha t Pi erre ha d a gr eedto pay th e co stof l eas in g M or in ’s tax i fo r on e weekinex ch an ge fortra ns po rta ti on fro m th e d oc k; Pie rre h adarra ng eda m eet in g a t a M cDo na ld ’s res taur an t b etweenMo rin an d t he cap ta in of t he bo at , W il li am Ro be rts , to sel ecta si te to do ckth e b oa t; Pie rre h adgi ve n Vau gh n’s te le ph on e num

be r to Mo rin ; an d Vau gh n h adin tro du cedMo rin to Deri lu s, wh o in te nd edto co ll ectth e co cai ne fro m th e b oa t. Cap ta in Ro be rts tes ti fie d abo ut 3 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 3 of 10m eet in g M or inat M cDo na ld ’s; s ai li ng with t he ali en s fr om th e Bah am as ; an d co op erat in g wi th ag en ts to m ak e a co nt ro ll edde li ve ry of t he co cai ne . Mor in an d Age nt s J effe ry

Desl au rie rs an d J oh n R ees co rro bo rat edRo be rts ’s st ory ab ou t the co nt ro ll edde li ve ry . AndDani el Mal on e, a fo ren si c ex am in er fo r th e Dep artm en t of Hom el an d S ecu rit y , tes ti fie d abo utto ll reco rd s o f te le ph on e cal ls pre ced in g t he arri va l o f th e b oa t b etweenMo rin an d R ob ert s, M or in an d Der il us , Deril us an d Vau gh n, Vau gh n a ndRo be rts , Vaug hn an d M an no , Vaug hn an d P ie rre’s wi fe, Vau gh n a ndPie rre, an d M an no an d P ie rre. A jury reaso nabl y co ul d fi ndth at Pi erre co ns pi redto im

po rt c oc ai ne in to th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r di st rib ut io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Qui lc a-Ca rp io , 11 8 F .3d71 9, 7 21 –2 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitadm it te d t es ti m on y fro m Agen t Des laur ie rs ab ou t Pi erre ’s gi rlf rie ndor wh enitpe rm it te d t he pr os ecu to r to us e le ad in g que st io ns . Desl au rie rs tes ti fie d abo utPie rre’s g irl fri en d to est ab li sh th e id en ti ty of th e al ie ns on bo ardth e b oa t an d t o e st ab li sh th atPie rre al so ha d awife , whi chwas re le va ntto a reco rd edtel ep ho ne cal l t o h er i n wh ic h Pi erre in stru ct edhe r to co nt actVaug hn forass is ta nc e in hi rin g a n a tt orne y . See Fed . R. Evi d. 4 01 . Pierre ar gu es th at“ Mo rin ’s tes ti m on y was t ot al ly lead[si c] by th e p ro se cu to r,” b utth e d is tri ctco urt s us ta in edPie rre’s o bjec ti on s t o t he pr os ecu to r’s le ad in g que st io ns . See Un it edSta te s v . Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3d13 44 , 4 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 4 of 1013 53 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Pie rre a ls o a rg ue s tha t Ag en t Ed di e Me lt on “pl ay edoff of le ad in g que st io ns ,” bu t M el to n was a de fen se witne ss who co ul d b e as ke d l ead in g qu es ti on s dur in g c ro ss -ex am in at io n. Se e Fed . R. Evi d. 6 11 (c)( 1) . The di stric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err by adm it ti ng ot he r te st im on y fro m Age ntDesl au rie rs , Agen t M el to n, o r Ro be rts or b y pe rm it ti ng th e p ro se cu to r to co m m en t o n M or in ’s tes ti m on y . Pierre arg ue s tha t the tes ti m on y an d c omm en ts

“ [b ]ols te redan d [v ]ouc h[ ed ] fo r th e [c]red ib il it y of [ w] it ne ss es ,” bu t n o re ve rs ib le erro r oc cu rred . To co ns ti tu te pl ai n e rro r, th e ad m is si on of t he st at em en ts m us t ha ve affe ct edPie rre’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s an d “ ‘seri ou sl y affe ct [ed ] th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or p ub li c rep ut at io n’” o f hi s tria l. Un it edSta te s v . Turn er, 4 74 F.3d 12 65 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Desl au rie rs ’s bri ef s ta te m en t tha t h e p erce iv ed Ro be rts as b ei ng tru th fu l wh enhe admit te d s m ug gl in g a li en s i nt o t he Uni te d St at es an d d en ie d a ny kn owl ed ge ab ou t the co cai ne co nc eal edinth e lu gg ag e d id no t af fectPie rre’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. An d R ob ert s was en ti tl edto tes ti fy th athe ha d b een a “ fai r gu y , strai gh t s ho ot er” wi th pe rs on s i n the “ Hait ia n c omm un it y ” to ex pl ai n wh y

he ha d b een “ du m

bf ou nd ed ,” “ an gry ,” an d b el ie ve d h e h adbe en“ se t up ” an d “ be tray ed ” whe n h e le arn edab ou t the co cai ne . Fed . R. Evi d. 7 01 . After Pi erre cal le d M el to n a s a wi tn es s an d que st io ne d h im ab ou t h is cred en ti al s, the pr os ecu to r was en ti tl edto askMel to n abo uthi s ex pe rie nc e, se e Fed . R. Evi d. 5 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 5 of 1061 1( b) , whi chwas re le va ntto hi s cr ed ib il ity , see Fed . R. Evi d. 4 02 . Andth e

pr os ecu to r was en ti tl edinsu m m at io n “ to po in t[] ou t fe atur es of [ Mo rin ’s] te st im on y th atsupp orte d [h is ] cred ib il it y ,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn s, 7 34 F.2d65 7, 66 3 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 4) , whi chin cl ud edMo rin ’s un eas e in ha vi ng to co nf es s h is cri m es inth e p res en ce o f hi s fa m il y an d t o t es ti fy

ag ai ns t Pi erre . The di stric t co urt al so di d n otpl ai nl y err wh enitadm it te d e ig htst at em en ts m ad e b y Agen t Des laur ie rs , Agen t Re es , Agen t M al on e, an d R ob ert s tha t Pi erre no w con te nd s was in adm is si bl e h ears ay . Pierre’s s ub st an ti al rig ht s wer e n ot affe ct edby the adm is si on of thr ee h ears ay st at em en ts by D es laur ie rs th atRees ha d sa idth athe fou ndco nt rab an d i n t he lu gg ag e; Offic er Be njam inCau di ll ha d s ai d th athe fou ndth e k ey s t o a cces s the lu gg ag e in Pie rre’s p oc ke t; or R ob ert s h adsai d th ateach ali enha d b oa rd edcarry in g api ece o f lu gg ag e. See Tu rn er, 4 74 F.3dat 12 76 . Thes e st at em en ts were cu m ul at iv e inth e li gh t o f Des laur ie rs ’s tes ti m on y th athe ha d t es te d t he whi te po wde r to ve rif y th e p res en ce o f co cai ne an d t ha t Pi erre ha d a dm it te d p os se ss in g t he ke y s; Cau di ll ’s tes ti m on y th athe ha d fo un d t he ke y s i n P ie rre’s p oc ke t; an d R ob ert s’s t es ti m on y th atth e al ie ns ha d b ro ug ht lu gg ag e o n b oardth e b oa t. Des laur ie rs ’s fou rth st at em en t tha t Re es ha d t ol d h im th atMo rin ha d arri ve d a t the do ckwas a dm is si bl e und er the ex cep ti on to th e he ars ay rul e fo r pr es en t s en se im pr es si on s. Fed . R. Evi d. 8 03 (1 ). AndPie rre fa il s 6 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 6 of 10to id en ti fy

an y he ars ay inDesl au rie rs ’s fifth s ta te m en t ab ou t s ig ni ng ev id en ce fo rm s; Rees ’s st at em en t tha t h e d idno t kno w th e “ acqui rin g a ge nt ” who ha d labe le d t he co cai ne ; Ag en t M al on e’s te st im on y ; o r Ro be rts ’s “wan de rin g n arra ti ve of hi s co nt act s an d c on ve rs at io ns with” an ot he r sm ug gl er. The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y ov erru li ng Pie rre’s h ears ay ob jecti on s t o que st io ns po se d t o R ob ert s an d Ag en t Re es . Rob ert s’s t es ti m on y ab ou t wh y

th e o wne r of

th e b oa t i ns is te d o n g iv in g R ob ert s a b il l o f sa le was n ot he ars ay . See Fed . R. Evi d. 8 01 (c)( 1) . No erro r oc cu rreddu rin g R ees ’s tes ti m on y be cau se Pie rre o bjec te d b efo re Re es co ul d re pe ata st at em en t b y th e b oa rd in g c rew th atth ey ha d fo un d k ey s t o the lu gg ag e in Pie rre’s p oc ke t. The di stric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err when itadm it te d t es ti m on y fro m Agen t Des laur ie rs th atPie rre “ was n’t co op erat in g,” “ he wasn ’t go in g t o b e trut hf ul ,” an d itwas “po in tl es s t o c on ti nu e que st io ni ng hi m .” Ther e is no m eri t t o P ie rre’s co nc lu so ry

arg um en t tha t Des laur ie rs ’s st at em en ts vi ol at edth e due pro ces s an d se lf- in cri m in at io n c laus es of t he Fif th Am en dm en t und er Un it edSta te s v . Mil le r, 25 5 F .3d12 82 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ), an d Do y le v. Oh io , 42 6 U.S. 6 10 , 96 S. Ct. 2 24 0 (1 97 6) , whi chpro hi bi t the go ve rn m en t fr om eli ci ti ng tes ti m on y

th ata de fen da nt in vo ke d h is rig htto rem ai n s il en t af te r be in g a dv is edof h is rig htto co un se l. Des laur ie rs tes ti fie d t ha t Pi erre waiv edhi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el an d t he n t ol d a ge nt s 7 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 7 of 10th athe di d n otsee an y on e b rin g l ug ga ge ab oa rdth e b oa t an d h adno id ea h ow the

ke y s g otinhi s p oc ke t. Des laur ie rs was e nt it le d t o t es ti fy th athe pe rcei ve d P ie rre as be in g u nc oo pe rat iv e. The di stric t co urt al so di d n otpl ai nl y err wh enitall owe d Ag en t Ra nd y Mat sc hn er t o t es ti fy

as a n e xp ertwitne ss or wh enitask edMat sc hn er t o “ expl ai n to th e jury whatth e p erce nt ag e o f [qua li ty] is of s tre etlev el [co cai ne ] orus e qu an ti ty ty

pi cal ly.” W

he n the pro se cu to r of

fere d M at sc hn er as anex pe rt wi tn es s, Pi erre st at edth athe “ di d n otha ve an y ob jecti on s,” andwaiv edhi s ch al le ng e to Mat sc hn er’s qua li fic at io ns . See Lin ds ey v. Nav is ta r In t’l Tran sp . Cor p., 1 50 F.3d 13 07 , 13 15 n.2 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). The d is tri ctco urt ac te d wi th in it s “ wid e di sc ret io n i n m an ag in g t he pro ceed in gs ,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Day , 40 5 F .3d12 93 , 12 97 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), whe n i t as ke d M at sc hn er t o e xp la in th e v al ue of t he co cai ne . The di stric t co urt d idno t p la in ly err when itadm it te d i nt o e vi de nc e th e co cai ne , keys, lu gg ag e, an d Des laur ie rs ’s “pape rwo rk .” Pie rre a rg ue s tha t an in su ffi ci en t ch ai n o f cu st od y ex is te d t o s up po rt a dm is si on of t he se it em s, b uthi s

“ [c]hal le ng e to th e ch ai n o f cu st od y go es to th e wei gh t ra th er than t he adm is si bi li ty of th e ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Lop ez, 7 58 F.2d15 17 , 15 21 (11 th Ci r. 19 85 ). Desl au rie rs ’s pap erwo rkwas o ffer edin to ev id en ce b y Pie rre, an d 8 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 8 of 10“ ‘whe re the in jecti on of a ll eg ed ly ina dm is si bl e ev id en ce i s at tri bu tabl e to th e act io n o f th e d efen se , it s i ntro du ct io n d oe s n otco ns ti tu te rev ers ib le erro r.’” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d12 73 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ma rti ne z, 60 4 F .2d36 1, 3 66 (5th C ir. 1 97 9) ). Pi erre arg ue s ab ou t cu m

ul at iv e erro r ba se d o n t he adm is si on of t es ti m on y an d e vi de nc e, bu t h is arg um en t fa il s. Be cau se Pie rre fa il s t o i de nt ify any rev ers ib le erro r, th ere c anbe no cu m ul at iv e err or . Uni te d S ta te s v . W al do n, 3 63 F.3 d 1 10 3, 1 11 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Pi erre als o a rg ue s, fo r th e fi rs t t im e, ab ou t the adm is si onof t es ti m on y th at co nn ect edhi m

to sm ug gl in g a li en s i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s an d a n a ll eg ed co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, b utth es e arg um en ts fai l t oo . Evid en ce ab ou t the co ns pi racy to s m

ug gl e al ie ns was i ne xt ric ab ly int ertwin edwith t he co ns pi racy to im po rt a nddi st rib ut e co cai ne . Test im on y ab ou t the ali en s was in te gr al to est ab li sh ho w Pie rre c on ceal edan d t ran sp orte d t he co cai ne to th e Uni te d S ta te s. See Uni te d St at es v. Mc Lean , 13 8 F .3d13 98 , 14 03 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Pie rre arg ue s tha t the

“ [s ]eizu re, [b ]oard in g, an d [s ]earchof t he bo at. . .andth e [s ]earchof [ hi s] pe rs on []” vi ol at edth e Fo urthAm en dm en t t o t he U.S. Con st itut io n, b utPie rre waiv edany

all eg edco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n b y fai li ng ti m el y

to m ov e to supp res s th e ev id en ce b efo re tria l o r to reque sta waiv er fro m th e ti m el in es s re qu ire m en t. 9 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 9 of 10Fed . R. Cri m . P. 12 (e); see Uni te d S ta te s v . Slo cu m , 70 8 F .2d58 7, 6 00 –0 1 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 83 ). AndPie rre p ro vi de s n o g oo d c au se to ex cu se hi s fa il ur e to co m pl y with R ul e 1 2( b) (3 )(C) . See Un it edSta te s v . Barri ng to n, 6 48 F.3d11 78 , 11 90 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t p la in ly err by adm it ti ng th e ev id en ce. IV. CONCLUSI ON W e AFFIRMPie rre’s co nv ic ti on s.

10 Case: 11-12837 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 10 of 10