concluding there was no plain error when “[b]oth parties acknowledge[d] that there is no precedent in [this] circuit, or any other circuit,” answering the question at issue
How later courts described this case
- concluding there was no plain error when “[b]oth parties acknowledge[d] that there is no precedent in [this] circuit, or any other circuit,” answering the question at issue
- holding that the defendant “cannot show an error that affected his substantial rights because he would have received the same Guidelines range and sentence”
- stating that oral motion for judgment of acquittal, which falls under Rule 29(a), preserves issue of sufficiency for de novo appellate review
- stating that, when an appellant raises an issue of first impression, this court will “conclude that any error was not plain or obvious.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in this well-stated opinion except in one respect. I would vacate one of the two alien-harboring convictions for each sister. Given the rule of lenity, I think the multiplicity error was plain error. See United States v. Ogba, 526 F.3d 214, 237-38 (5th Cir.2008).