Hicks

MEMORANDUM **

Antonia Denise Hicks appeals her conviction on eight counts of wire fraud. She alleges that prosecutorial misconduct during her trial requires reversal of the convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Hicks acknowledges that trial counsel failed to object to any of the prosecution’s questions or argument that Hicks contends is objectionable. In order for us to notice the forfeited error, there must have been error, it must be plain (clear or obvious), and the error must affect substantial rights in that “the error must have been prejudicial: It must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). The Supreme Court teaches that Rule 52(b) authorizes the correction of only “ ‘particularly egregious errors,’ those errors that ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ In other words, the plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.’ ” United States v. Young, 470 U.S.…