and that an error qualifies as “plain if the settled law of the Supreme Court or this circuit establishes that an error has occurred” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We further conclude that the error affected Banks’ substantial rights because the district court’s revocation decision was based on the determination that the cocaine sales alleged in the revocation petition had been established by the officer’s testimony. See United States v. Greene, 704 F.3d 298, 312 (4th Cir.2013) (noting that the phrase “affecting substantial rights in most cases means that the error was prejudicial” (internal quotation marks, alteration, and ellipsis omitted)), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W. - (U.S. Apr. 29, 2013) (No. 12-9965); United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302, 334 (4th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we conclude that the district
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 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 that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not objected to or brought to the courts attention 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 recognizing that an error prejudices substantial rights when it affects the outcome of the hearing at issue