Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (reversing and remanding for determination of whether permissive intervention should have been allowed, where district court did not previously rule on question and where appellate court concluded that to permit it would not constitute an abuse of discretion). On appeal, however, we have a duty to determine if such an error was harmless. See Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hosp., 612 F.2d 131, 134 (3d Cir.1979) (applying harmless-error analysis to denial of motion to intervene for the purpose of appealing). Since we have considered all of the Task Force’s claims in this appeal, we conclude that the denial of its motion to intervene permissively constituted harmless error. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings in the Matter of Freeman, 708 F.2d 1571, 1575 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Washington State Bldg. & Constr. Trades 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court (B) holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court (C) holding that failure to permit intervention was harmless where the appellate court considered the defendants claim  as if the district court had al lowed them to intervene (D) holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial (E) holding that appellate court may infer that district court considered sentencing guidelines policy statements despite district courts failure to make explicit reference to them
Output (English): holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial