by the government and there was no clear prejudice to Allen. c. Court-Ordered Psychiatric Examination Allen asserts that the district court erred in ordering him to undergo a psychiatric examination by a government-selected psychiatrist without a full protective order and in allowing a prosecutor to violate the terms of the court’s partial protective order. We find no constitutional error and therefore reject both claims. There is no doubt that a district court has the authority to order a defendant who states that he will use evidence from his own psychiatric examination in the penalty phase of a trial to undergo a psychiatric examination by a government-selected psychiatrist before the start of the penalty phase. See United States v. Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 338-40 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 829, 120 S.Ct. 83, 145
recognizing superior court must conduct an  on the record examination to determine defendants voluntariness and knowledge holding that preservation for review requires a fair ruling or decision by the district court in order to provide the lower court with an opportunity to correct any mistake give the opposing party an opportunity to demonstrate why the district court should rule in its favor and create a record which enables this court to make informed decisions holding that the district court did in effect hold a hearing when it gave the defense a chance to supplement a psychiatric report with further evidence holding that a district court possesses the inherent power to order a psychiatric examination based on 18 usc  3593c which requires that the government be given a fair opportunity to rebut any of defendants mitigating evidence and fedrcrimp 12 which allows a courtordered psychiatric examination during similar circumstances in the guilt phase of trials holding that 18 usc  3583d requires that the court determine the number of drug tests to which the defendants must submit