of ammunition are one and the same, so he may only be punished once for Counts Three and Four. The Court is not aware of any evidence on record to suggest that the defense counsel ever objected to the imposition of separate punishments for Counts Three and Four. As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the trial court erred in imposing multiple sentences for Counts Three and Four. Since Turbe failed to object to the sentencing in the court below, the court will review the issue for plain error. Therefore, only if the trial court committed plain error that affected Turbe’s substantial rights may we consider whether fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings warrants reversal. See, e.g., United States v. Irizarry, 341 F.3d 273, 298-99 (3d Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth
holding that the closure of a courtroom during jury selection a structural error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings holding that reversal was unwarranted despite the admission of the defendants prior criminal acts since such admission did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings quotation and citation omitted recognizing that plain error analysis requires 1 error 2 that is plain 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously affects fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings