SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Bryant Williams appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on September 1, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jones, J.) following a 10-day jury trial. Williams was convicted of engaging in a scheme to deprive the United States of honest services under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346 and accepting bribes in violation of his official duties as a military officer under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A) and (C). The district court sentenced Williams principally to 36 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Williams challenges trial rulings that (1) allowed the government to admit evidence concerning wire-transfers made by a third-party at Williams’s request, and *149(2) excluded statements made by the government at a pretrial conference that purportedly conflicted with arguments made at trial concerning the wire transfers.
The district court did not abuse its “broad discretion” in regard to these evidentiary rulings. United States v. SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc., 195 F.Sd 83, 87 (2d Cir.1999). First, evidence that Williams asked a third-party to wire nearly $12,000 in cash from Iraq to Williams’s friend in the United States was relevant to whether Williams was guilty of accepting cash bribes from contractors in Iraq. See Fed. R.Evid. 401. The district court did not err by concluding that the evidence was “admissible as direct evidence ” of the charged crime — i.e., that Williams was receiving bribes. Appendix 83 (emphasis added).
Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit statements made by the government at a pretrial conference concerning the wire transfers. We agree with the district court that, considering the circumstances, these statements were not admissions by a party opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Ford, 435 F.3d 204, 215 (2d Cir.2006) (citing United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 33 (2d Cir.1984)). Even if they were admissions, any error in precluding them was harmless because the statements were not inconsistent with the government’s statements at trial.
We have considered Williams’s remaining arguments and, after a thorough review of the record, find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.