Opinion ID: 2736474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Conferences Held in McPherson’s Absence

Text: Finally, McPherson contends that the magistrate judge and district judge erred when they held a pretrial conference 8 and the charge conference in chambers, rather than in open court. He did not object to having these conferences held in chambers, so we review his claim only for plain error. See United States v. Sherman, 821 F.2d 1337, 1338–39 (9th Cir. 1987) (applying plain-error review to district court’s decision to conduct charge conference without defendant present); see also United States v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 309 (7th Cir. 2000) (similar). To prevail under the plain-error standard, McPherson must show (1) that there was error, (2) that it was plain, and (3) that it affected his substantial rights. United States v. Rodriguez, 627 F.3d 1372, 1380 (11th Cir. 2010). Even if he is able to meet those three requirements, we may exercise our discretion to notice the forfeited error only if it “seriously affect[ed] the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Id. Because it is difficult to meet, the plain-error standard is a “daunting obstacle” for an appellant to overcome. United States v. Pielago, 135 F.3d 703, 708 (11th Cir. 1998). McPherson has not carried his burden of showing plain error. Assuming that it was error for the magistrate judge to hold a pretrial conference without the defendant’s presence, that error was not plain. Under Federal Rule of Criminal 8 The pretrial conference was conducted by a magistrate judge instead of by the district