We review de novo a denial of a judgment of acquittal for sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009). "We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the jury's verdict.

Id. Even if a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were violated, we are required to consider whether the error was harmless. United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1362 (11th Cir. 2009). "The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."

Typically, we review challenges to the district court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009). But we review de novo a defendant’s claim that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated.

Id. at 1239. When a multi-count sentence incorporates an illegal sentence, the entire case should be remanded for resentencing. United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1366 (11th Cir. 2009). If the district court viewed a defendant's sentence as a "package," with each component of the sentence dependent on the other, the district court "may" revisit the entire sentence in a multi-count case on remand, even if only a single component of the sentence is defective. United States v. Fowler, 749 F.3d 1010, 1016-17 (11th Cir. 2014).

We review de novo the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1359 (11th Cir.2009). In doing so, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility determinations in favor of the jury's verdict.

"United States v. Berkman, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14242 (11th Cir. July 12, 2011) (citing United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1361 n. 7 (11th Cir. 2009). Under the coconspirator exception, "[a] statement is not hearsay if it is made by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy."

The denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo based on the sufficiency of the evidence and questions of statutory interpretation. United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Zuniga-Arteaga, 681 F.3d 1220, 122223 (11th Cir. 2012). And we "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the jury's verdict."

Applying the harmless error test here, we consider: the importance of the hearsay statements to the government's case, whether the statements were cumulative, the corroborating evidence, the extent of cross-examination permitted, and the overall strength of the government's case. See United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1363 (11th Cir. 2009). Powell accuses Detective Adams of introducing testimony hearsay because she relayed statements made to her by Regionda Ball and Cherry Carter, two of the women who were riding in the back of the SUV. Adams testified that Ball told her "that she didn't know anything," "that the gun wasn't hers," and that she was Powell's girlfriend.

The notion is that, especially in the guidelines era, sentencing on multiple counts is an inherently interrelated, interconnected, and holistic process which requires a court to craft an overall sentence—the “sentence package”—that reflects the guidelines and the relevant § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Martinez, 606 F.3d 1303, 1304 (11th Cir.2010); United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1365–66 (11th Cir.2009); United States v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 1228, 1245 (11th Cir.2005). A criminal sentence in a multi-count case is, by its nature, “a package of sanctions that the district court utilizes to effectuate its sentencing intent consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines” and with the § 3553(a) factors.

A defendant's claim that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated is reviewed de novo. United States v. Gari, 572 F.3d 1352, 1361–62 (11th Cir.2009). III. DISCUSSION