at least one statutory aggravating factor. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a),(e). The FDPA explicitly permits the government to present evidence “concerning the effect of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family.” 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a). Such evidence “may include oral testimony, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by the victim and the victim’s family, and any other relevant information.” Id. Under the FDPA, the prosecution must provide the defendant with notice of its intent to use victim im pact evidence, unless its evidence is introduced merely to rebut mitigating evidence offered by the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a)-(b); see also United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 778-81 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 953, 122
holding that remand was necessary when the alj failed to adhere to  4041527d2s procedural requirements and noting that a de minimis violation of those procedural requirements may qualify as harmless error holding that fdpa allows victim impact evidence and that the notice and unanimity requirements of the fdpa are adequate procedural safeguards holding notice of balance due satisfies notice and demand requirements holding that rule 322a is an adequate and independent procedural bar holding that internal procedural safeguards could and should have been established to prevent the loss of a complaint by the postal service and the consequent entry of default judgment