involved plain error because the defendant failed to timely object to the error, id. at 634, 122 S.Ct. 1781, not harmless error as is the case here. The crucial consideration in Cotton was that, because the evidence at trial was overwhelming and uncontroverted, “the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 632-33, 122 S.Ct. 1781. Here, because Lewis’s case does not involve review for plain error, the issue of whether the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings is not before us. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (noting that this is a question fer plain-error review); see also Jordan, 291 F.3d at 1096 n. 7 (<HOLDING>); Mackins, 315 F.3d at 409 (distinguishing
recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that harmless error analysis is inappropriate in a powers case holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that cotton does not  control nor aid our analysis because that case was analyzed under plain error not harmless error holding that omission was not plain error