Nonwovens, Inc., 97 F.3d 446, 447 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam) ("The employee retains at all times the burden of persuading the jury ... that he was not a direct threat ....”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1118, 117 S.Ct. 964, 136 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997). The Fifth Circuit has drawn a line somewhere in between the two positions. See Rizzo v. Children’s World Learning Ctrs., Inc., 173 F.3d 254, 259-60 (5th Cir.1999) ("[T]he burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that, as a qualified individual, she is not a direct threat to herself or others.... [W]hen a court finds that the safety requirements imposed tend to screen out the disabled, then the burden of proof shifts to the employer, to prove that the employee is, in fact, a direct threat.”), aff'd en banc, 213 F.3d 209 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), and cert. denied, 531 U.S. 958, 121 S.Ct.
holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review holding district court order of restitution failed for lack of proof when government failed to meet burden holding defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal recognizing that conclusory statements do not preserve an issue for appeal holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial