Opinion ID: 3063268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ultimate Judgment

Text: A district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Wexler v. Anderson, 452 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006). Additionally, we “will not overturn an evidentiary ruling and order a new trial unless the objecting party has shown a substantial prejudicial effect from the ruling.” Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641, 667 (11th Cir. 2001). Calzon’s argument that she was not on notice that her loan payments were due is predicated on her contention that Francisco’s testimony was improper. Calzon contends that, without Francisco’s allegedly improper testimony, the government could not prove she defaulted on her loan. However, as discussed above, Francisco’s testimony, in which he refreshed his memory using Calzon’s Borrower’s History and Activity Report, was not improper. Moreover, even if 4 Francisco’s testimony was improper, Calzon has not shown that it resulted in substantial prejudice. See Maiz at 253 F.3d at 667. It is undisputed that Calzon had executed a promissory note with DOE and had made no repayments on her loan. In light of her note and her admitted failure to make any payments on her note, Calzon has not demonstrated how she suffered substantial prejudice from Francisco’s allegedly improper testimony. The district court did not err when it entered judgment against Calzon on her student loan obligation. AFFIRMED. 5