MEMORANDUM *
Adan Moran-Elias appeals his jury conviction for several offenses related to smuggling an undocumented alien, Martin Duarte-Saucedo, into the United States. We affirm.
Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents had probable cause to arrest Moran-Elias under the “totality of the circumstances,” United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1077-78 (9th Cir.2007). The CBP’s observations that Duarte-Saucedo crossed the border using false documentation, proceeded to an apparently pre-planned meeting with Jamah Briggs, accompanied Briggs to another apparently pre-planned meeting with Moran-Elias, and then accompanied Moran-Elias to Nelida Dimas’s waiting car, created a “fair probability” that Moran-Elias was part of an “ongoing criminal operation” to smuggle Duarte-Saucedo into the United States. See United States v. Rodriguez, 869 F.2d 479, 483 (9th Cir.1989).
As the government concedes, Duarte-Saucedo’s videotaped deposition was admitted in error. In light of the record as a whole, including Moran-Elias’s confession, Dimas’s testimony regarding her instructions to pick up and transport an undocumented alien, and the CBP’s observation that Duarte-Saucedo presented false identification at the border, we are convinced that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Pena-Gutierrez, 222 F.3d 1080, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2000).
The district court did not err in admitting Dimas’s testimony regarding smuggling activity that occurred before the Duarte-Saucedo incident. There was ample evidence of a long-standing smuggling conspiracy involving Moran-Elias, Dimas, and others, and thus the testimony was “ ‘directly related to, or inextricably intertwined with, the crime charged in the indictment.’ ” United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Lillard, 354 F.3d 850, 854 (9th Cir.2003)).
Because Briggs’s post-arrest statement was exculpatory and did not implicate Moran-Elias, the district court did not err in refusing to give a limiting instruction under Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987). Finally, there was no cumulative error.
AFFIRMED.