Opinion ID: 2789925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: This court reviews de novo whether there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. United States v. Doe, 661 F.3d 550, 560 (11th Cir. 2011). The district court has wide discretion in its evidentiary rulings. “Ordinarily, a district court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). However, when the defendant fails to preserve a challenge to an evidentiary ruling by contemporaneously objecting, our review is for plain error. Id. This court reviews for plain error a claim of the denial of the right of allocution when the defendant made no objection at sentencing. United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 2002). “Under the plain error standard, before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. McKinley, 732 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). If these three conditions are satisfied, the court may exercise its 9 Case: 14-10530 Date Filed: 03/30/2015 Page: 10 of 17 discretion to correct the error, “but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002)).