[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 14, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 06-14885
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-20948-CR-JEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JI WU CHEN,
MEIHUA LI,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 14, 2008)
Before WILSON, COX, and BOWMAN,* Circuit Judges.
*
Honorable Pasco M. Bowman II, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit,
sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Ji Wu Chen and Meihua Li were arrested pursuant to a Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation of the importation and
trafficking of counterfeit goods by DC USA LLC, a Florida corporation operating
in Miami. Chen was the corporation’s secretary, and Li operated a flea market
booth out of which counterfeit goods were sold. Chen and Li lived together in
Miami.
After a jury trial, Chen and Li were convicted of conspiring to intentionally
traffic in goods and use counterfeit marks in connection with the goods, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a), and conspiring to fraudulently and knowingly
receive, conceal, buy, and sell merchandise after illegal importation, in violation of
15 U.S.C. § 1124 and 18 U.S.C. § 545 (Count 1); knowingly using counterfeit
marks that were indistinguishable from registered marks and were likely to
deceive, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a) (Count 2); and fraudulently and
knowingly receiving, concealing, buying, and selling merchandise after illegal
importation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545 (Count 6).
Chen was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment on Counts 1 and 6, and 97
months’ imprisonment on Count 2, to run concurrently, with three years of
supervised release. Li likewise received a 60-month sentence for Counts 1 and 6,
2
but received an 87-month sentence for Count 2, to run concurrently, followed by
three years of supervised release. They were also ordered to forfeit the seized
merchandise and pay $27,498.31 in restitution.
On appeal, Chen and Li raise several arguments, none of which have any
merit. We wish to comment, however, on the confidential informant whom the
district court permitted to testify under a pseudonym. Specifically, it bothers us
that the defendants were never given the witness’s true name. Nevertheless, the
defense knew that the government would be calling this witness and that the
witness would be testifying under a pseudonym, and despite that knowledge, the
defense never objected to the testimony. Thus, because Appellants raise this
argument for the first time on appeal, our review is for plain error. See United
States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1321-22 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
Appellants have not shown that permitting the witness to testify under a
pseudonym affected their substantial rights or otherwise prejudiced them. See
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L. Ed. 2d
508 (1993). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not plainly err.
AFFIRMED.
3