SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Ezaz Kabir Choudhury appeals the judgment of the District Court sentencing him principally to a term of 108 months’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit credit card fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(b)(2) (Count One), and conspiring to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 1349 (Count Two). On appeal, defendant contends that the District Court erred in sentencing him above the statutory maximum for Count One and requests a full resentencing. 1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the case.

DISCUSSION

As Choudhury concedes that he did not object to his sentence when it was imposed, we review for plain error. Under plain error review, “an appellate court may, in its discretion, correct an error not raised at trial only where the appellant demonstrates that (1) there is an ‘error’; (2) the error is ‘clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute’; (3) the error ‘affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means’ it ‘affected the outcome of the district court proceedings’; and (4) ‘the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010) (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009)). Generally, to “affect substantial rights,” an error must have caused prejudice and affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). On plain error review, “[i]t is the defendant rather than the Government who bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice.” Id.

There is no dispute that the District Court erred in sentencing Choudhury principally to 108 months imprisonment for Count One, which exceeds the 90-month statutory maximum for that count. However, the properly imposed concurrent sentence of imprisonment for 108 months on Count Two undermines the defendant’s claim that the District Court’s error affected his “substantial rights.” See United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 640 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[A]n erroneous sentence on one count of a multiple-count conviction does not affect substantial rights where the total term of imprisonment remains unaffected[.]”). Thus, the requirements of plain error have not been satisfied and the judg *27 ment of the District Court should be affirmed.

CONCLUSION

We have considered all of appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.