Opinion ID: 2644110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cumulative Errors (Point XIII)

Text: Finally, Appellant argues that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors warrant a reversal of his conviction. Because this claim was not preserved, we review for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (holding that appeals courts should not exercise that discretion unless the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Individual errors that do not entitle a petitioner to relief may do so when combined, if cumulatively the prejudice resulting from them undermined the fundamental fairness of his trial and denied him his constitutional right to due process.” Fahy v. Horn, 516 F.3d 169, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). Reversal is warranted only when “the[ ] errors, when combined, so infected the jury’s deliberations that they had a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial.” United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. 1992). Appellant contends that the present case constitutes “a collection of essential flaws which rendered the trial below unfair and prejudicial to Mr. Roland.” (Appellant Br. 75.) We are not persuaded. Our own review of the record has found no support for the conclusion that the trial was tainted with error warranting a reversal of his conviction. 17 The alleged errors, therefore, could not have had a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial. Accordingly, we conclude that Roland has not demonstrated plain error to warrant a reversal of the District Court’s order.