whether to overlook a party’s failure to comply with local court rules.”); cf. United States v. Botti, 711 F.3d 299, 313 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[IJssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because Stegemann has not shown good cause for his failure to adequately raise his aerial surveillance argument in the district court, we do not address it. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 125 (2d Cir. 2003). 2. Stegemann argues that the wiretap warrants failed to satisfy various requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2518. Even if true, any error regarding the admission of wiretap evidence was harmless. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he strength of the government’s case is
holding that a nonconstitutional error is harmless where an appellate court has a fair assurance that the error did not substantially affect the verdict holding that nonconstitutional error is harmless if it did not have substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding that an error is harmless where it is highly probably that the error did not affect the outcome of the case holding that bia error is harmless when it is highly probable that error did not affect cases outcome holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed