
    PHOENICIAN IMPORTS, INC., d.b.a. Azhar’s Oriental Rugs, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
    No. 04-14767.
    D.C. Docket No. 99-00600 CV-JAL.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 14, 2005.
    Alexandra Sierra-De Varona, Steven Mark Katzman, Katzman, Wasserman & Bennardini, P.A., Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.
    John Robert Parker, Jr., Robert K. Spotswood, Michael Todd Sansbury, Kenneth Daniel Sansom, Spotswood LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant.
    Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and COOGLER, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable L. Scott Coogler, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict against Federal Express Corporation in an action under the Warsaw Convention in which Phoenician Imports, Inc., claimed damages resulting from Federal Express’s alleged delay in delivery of goods.

The issues presented for appellate review are (1) whether the district court erred in denying FedEx’s motion in limine to exclude or rebut Phoenician’s damages expert thereby requiring a new trial; (2) whether a new trial is required because the district court admitted testimony of an oral agreement; (3) whether Phoenician presented sufficient evidence that it gave FedEx notice of its claim under Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention such that the district court properly denied FedEx’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial; and (4) if a new trial is not required, whether the district court properly awarded prejudgment interest and whether the judgment should be reduced to the liability limit permitted by the Warsaw Convention.

This court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and will reverse the district court where the ruling resulted in a “substantial prejudicial effect.” Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d 1272, 1305 (11th Cir.1999).

Moreover, this court reviews the district court’s disposition of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 967 F.2d 1563, 1566 (11th Cir.1992). This court reviews de novo a district court’s calculation of prejudgment interest where such involves construction of state law. See Alphamed, Inc. v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 367 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir.2004).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude there is no merit to the arguments presented by FedEx and, accordingly, we affirm the distriet court’s judgment entered on the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.  