Legal Standards of Review
– The Established Citations –
Clear Error

Because Schultz did not raise his challenge to the magistrate judge's authority in the district court, however, we review it only for plain error. United States v. Freixas, 332 F.3d 1314, 1316 (11th Cir. 2003) ("Freixas's argument concerning the magistrate judge's authority is advanced for the first time on appeal, and accordingly we review it only for plain error."

We review a district court's award of damages under a clearly erroneous standard. Taylor Rental Corp. v. J.I. Case Co., 749 F.2d 1526, 1530 (11th Cir. 1985).

We review the factual findings underlying a district court's determination regarding prevailing party status for clear error. Church of Scientology Flag Serv., Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1509, 1512-13 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 54, 130 L.Ed.2d 13 (1994).

With respect to Sentencing Guidelines issues, this Court reviews "purely legal questions de novo, a district court's factual findings for clear error, and, in most cases, a district court's application of the guidelines to the facts with `due deference.'" United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 1136-37 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. White, 335 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir.2003)). See also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). And the "due deference" standard is, itself, tantamount to clear error review. See United States v. White, 335 F.3d 1314, 1318-19 (11th Cir. 2003). For a finding to be clearly erroneous, this Court "must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d at 1137 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Woodard neither objected to the plea proceedings conducted by the magistrate judge nor subsequently moved to withdraw his plea at his sentencing hearing; therefore, we review the statutory and constitutional issues raised in his appeal for plain error. See United States v. Maragh, 174 F.3d 1202, 1204 (11th Cir. 1999) ("Because [the defendant] made no objection to the magistrate judge's conducting of voir dire, we review the district court's delegation of jury selection to the magistrate judge only for plain error."); see also United States v. Acevedo, 285 F.3d 1010, 1011-12 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting constitutional issues not raised in the district court are subject to plain error review). The four-prong test to establish plain error is:

(1) there must have been an error;

(2) the error must have been plain;

(3) the error must have seriously affected substantial rights; and

(4) the error must have seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Acevedo, 285 F.3d at 1012.