[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 04-15259 FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Non-Argument Calendar
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ June 2, 2005
THOMAS K. KAHN
D.C. Docket No. 03-00268-CR-BE-S CLERK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OLIVER COLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(June 2, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, Oliver Coleman seeks the vacation of his conviction of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute Dilaudid pills, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and a new trial.1 He is entitled to a new trial, he
contends, because the district court erroneously admitted into evidence a transcript
of a taped phone conversation that included a synopsis prepared by the
Government identifying him as the supplier of the drugs. Because Coleman failed
to object to the introduction of the transcript, we review its presence before the
jury only for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113
S.Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).
We may vacate a conviction for plain error if (1) an error occurred, that (2)
was plain, (3) affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) “seriously affects
the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 732-36,
113 S.Ct. at 1777-79. Coleman points us to no rule of law that specifically
precludes the admission into evidence of a transcript prefaced by an arguably
prejudicial government-prepared synopsis. In his brief, Coleman cites no
precedent indicating that the introduction of the transcript into evidence
constituted error. It follows, then, that the admission of the transcript, if
1
In his reply brief, Coleman challenges his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.
___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). He did raise the Blakely issue in a pro se filing,
which, in effect, supplemented his attorney’s initial brief. This court’s Clerk’s Office, however,
refused to accept Coleman’s pro se supplemental filing because he was represented by counsel. In
sum, Coleman failed to present his Blakely challenge in his initial brief, and it has been abandoned.
See United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that appellant
abandoned his Booker claim on appeal by not raising a timely constitutional challenge to his
sentence in his initial brief).
2
erroneous, was not plainly erroneous. Finally, Coleman fails to show us how this
evidence affected his substantial rights.
AFFIRMED.
3