◆ SpookStack

: 6 @ Page 9 of 29 6. Rosario also raises again the argument that the magistrate judge erred v by denying her motion in limine to exclude the admission of her prior bribery conviction. We decline to address the merits of the magistrate's in limine ruling because, by not testifying at trial, Rosario has failed to preserve this issue for appeal. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (holding that in order to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify); United States v. Moskovits, 86 F.3d 1308, 1305-06 (3d Cir. 1996) (same), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 968 (1997). the government's evidence could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the government proved all the elements of the offenses." United States v. Salmon, 944 F.2d 1106, 1113 (3d Cir. 1991). Accordingly, "[a] claim of insufficiency of the evidence places a very heavy burden on the appellant." United States v. Coyle, 63 F.3d 1239, 1243 (3d Cir. 1995). Rosario was convicted of check forgery under 18 U.S.C. § 510(a)(2), which provides: (a) Whoever, with intent to defraud-- (2) passes, utters, or publishes, or attempts to pass, nttp://vis. law. vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1636p.htm 5/10/2005