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, (2) that 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 introduction constituted plain error. Finally, Coleman fails to show us how this evidence affected his substantial rights.

AFFIRMED.