context: Essex cannot show that any procedural error in the way the district court disposed of its claims against TME and Archer affected its substantial rights.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 523 F.2d 689, 700
citation_a.parenthetical: "[P]roce-dural error does not warrant reversal unless it affects the substantial rights of the parties."
citation_a.sentence: See Fed. R.Civ.P. 61; 28 U.S.C. § 2111; United States v. Killough, 848 F.2d 1523, 1527 (11th Cir.1988) (noting that the party asserting error has the burden of proving that the error prejudiced its substantial rights); see also Jimenez v. Weinberger, 523 F.2d 689, 700 (7th Cir.1975) (“[P]roce-dural error does not warrant reversal unless it affects the substantial rights of the parties.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 848 F.2d 1523, 1527
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that the party asserting error has the burden of proving that the error prejudiced its substantial rights
citation_b.sentence: See Fed. R.Civ.P. 61; 28 U.S.C. § 2111; United States v. Killough, 848 F.2d 1523, 1527 (11th Cir.1988) (noting that the party asserting error has the burden of proving that the error prejudiced its substantial rights); see also Jimenez v. Weinberger, 523 F.2d 689, 700 (7th Cir.1975) (“[P]roce-dural error does not warrant reversal unless it affects the substantial rights of the parties.”).