court’s plain error affected Newsom’s substantial rights In deciding whether the error affected Newsom’s substantial rights, the inquiry is whether the error “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (citation omitted). The burden to show that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings rests with Newsom. See Ola-no, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (stating that the defendant bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate prejudice in the plain-error inquiry under Rule 52(b)). In some cases, the admission of evidence that should have been excluded has been found to have changed the outcome of the proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Buchanon, 72 F.3d 1217, 1227 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The district court in the present case,
holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence holding that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting physical evidence of the defendants prior drug arrest in addition to the fact of the arrest itself when the evidence was relevant under rule 404b and the district court gave a limiting instruction holding that apprendi error did not affect substantial rights where in the absence of the error the application of section 5g12d of the guidelines would have resulted in the same term of imprisonment holding that the district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings