Confrontation Clause; (2) that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction on the arson conspiracy count; (3) that the District Court erred in denying his pre-trial motion for severance; (4) that the District Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss counts of the indictment as multiplicious; and (5) that the District Court erred in determining his sentence. We consider each challenge in turn. It is undisputed that the admission into evidence of the co-defendants’ plea allocutions violated defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The Government argues, following our decision in United States v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219 (2d Cir.2004), that the admission was harmless error. Id. at 222 (<HOLDING>). In undertaking harmless error review, we
holding that a constitutional error is harmless where it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that the harmless error test places a burden on the state to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that erroneous admission of plea allocutions does not necessitate a new trial as long as the government can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained  quoting united states v casamento 887 f2d 1141 1179 2d cir1989 holding that before an error can be held harmless the reviewing court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendants conviction