UNOBJECTED RULINGS
STANDARD OF REVIEW = CLEAR ERROR

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.