Opinion ID: 789213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 67 A district court's factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). 11 A finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)); United States v. De la Cruz-Tapia, 162 F.3d 1275, 1277 (10th Cir.1998) (same). This standard plainly does not entitle a reviewing court to reverse the finding of the trier of fact simply because it is convinced that it would have decided the case differently. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504. In applying the clearly erroneous standard ... appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues de novo. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 123, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969). 68 A district court's decision to review certain documents in camera or ex parte is reviewed for abuse of discretion, United States v. Perez-Gomez, 638 F.2d 215, 218 (10th Cir.1981), as are decisions to require permission to file certain pleadings and to deny motions for sanctions. See Gust v. Jones, 162 F.3d 587, 598 (10th Cir.1998). We similarly review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Fuentez, 231 F.3d 700, 708 (10th Cir.2000). Finally, we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo. Battenfield v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 1215, 1220 (10th Cir.2001). 69 The harmless-error rule is used to determine whether an individual error requires reversal. United States v. Rivera, 900 F.2d 1462, 1469 (10th Cir.1990). Cumulative-error analysis, on the other hand, aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether their cumulative effect on the outcome of the trial is such that collectively they can no longer be determined to be harmless. Id. at 1470. The harmlessness of cumulative error is determined by conducting the same inquiry as for individual error — courts look to see whether the defendant's substantial rights were affected. Id. However, just as harmless-error analysis is utilized only to determine whether actual error should be disregarded, a cumulative-error analysis aggregates only actual errors to determine their cumulative effect. Id. (emphasis in original).