a defendant asserts a procedural error on appeal that was not raised below when prompted by the district court . . . our review is limited to determining whether the sentencing court committed plain error.”). Another approach is to apply the plain error standard to all sentencing errors not preserved at trial. United States. v. Chavez-Hernandez, 671 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2012). Most importantly, the approach utilized by many courts in jurisdictions, similar to the Virgin Islands, where there are no comprehensive sentencing guidelines is as follows: sentences that fall within the legislatively prescribed range are not reviewable absent a showing of illegality or improper procedure that amounts to abuse of discretion. See State v. Franklin, 267 S.C. 240, 226 S.E.2d 896, 898 (S.C. 1976) (<HOLDING>); State v. Erickson, 281 Neb. 31, 793 N.W.2d
holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court holding that a trial court is not required to reimpose the original sentence but has discretion to impose a new sentence within the statutory limits governing the offense for which she was convicted recognizing that this court and the united states supreme court have embraced the notion that so long as the sentence imposed is within the maximum limit set by the legislature an appellate court is without power to review the sentence holding that an appellate court has no jurisdiction to review a sentence imposed by the trial court that is within the limits prescribed by statute which is not the result of oppression prejudice or corrupt motive holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals