strategy clearly was to undermine the credibility of Levatte and Harris, the Government’s key cooperating witnesses. Counsel attempted to persuade the jury not to believe Levatte and Harris, arguing they were liars and felon was affected by the improper admission of her false statements. All relevant considerations counsel in favor of upholding Thomas’s convictions. The admission of Thomas’s false statement was undoubtedly error, but it was also undoubtedly harmless. We have no difficulty concluding it is beyond a reasonable doubt the improperly admitted statement did not contribute to the jury’s verdict finding Thomas guilty as charged. See Arbolaez, 450 F.3d at 1293. III. CONCLUSION The district court erred in denying Thomas’s motion to suppress. However, -91 (6th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833, 840-43 (6th
holding one night was enough time for the coercive effect of an edwards violation to subside  citing gomez 927 f2d at 153839 holding to the same effect holding that in the absence of an edwards violation the amount of time between interrogation and a defendants statement is only one measure of  voluntariness holding that statutory good time credits must be calculated under the law in effect at the time of resentencing after an appeal of the sentence is determined holding that for purposes of revoking supervised release the applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of the supervised release violations rather than those in effect at the time of initial offense