
    UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Solomon Manasseh MUSTAFA, a.k.a. G, a.k.a. J, a.k.a. Black, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-15144.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 7, 2014.
    Susan Coppedge, Nekia Shantel Hackworth, Yonette Sam-Buchanan, Lawrence R. Somraerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeffrey Lyn Ertel, Judy Fleming, Stephanie A. Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WILSON, Circuit Judge, MIDDLEBROOKS, and ALBRITTON, District Judges.
    
      
       Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
    
      
       Honorable William H. Albritton, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Solomon Manasseh Mustafa and his wife, Kalandra Wallace, were charged in a 12-count indictment with criminal offenses arising from their participation in a sex trafficking operation in the metropolitan Atlanta area. After a jury trial and the dismissal of one count of the indictment, Mustafa was convicted of the remaining counts and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals his conviction, raising the following issues:

1. Whether the district court erred in denying his motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 [106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69] (1986), alleging racial discrimination in the selection of his jury.
2. Whether the district court erred in overruling his trial objections to testimony by a victim, a victim’s father, and Clayton County Police Officer Robert Boisis, in violation of the Confrontation Clause.
3. Whether the district court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecution’s “Golden Rule” argument.
4. Whether the cumulative effect of the district court’s errors deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial.

After review and consideration of the briefs and the record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no harmful error in the proceedings in the district court. Therefore, the decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.  