Whether the pre-Olano 'manifest injustice' standard or Olano's plain-error framework governs appellate review of a forfeited error

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• Discussed · 1st Cir.United States v. Rodriguez

  “Rodriguez, the First Circuit held that the imposition of a sentence below the statutory minimum affected substantial rights and remanded the case for resentencing.” — United States v. Perkins, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · 6th Cir.United States v. Barajas-Nunez

  “Barajas-Nunez, applied the Olano conditions and agreed that reviewing courts should not assume “that only defendants and never the government should be able to demonstrate that a plain error affected substantial rights.” 24 The court also remanded the case for resentencing, holding that “permitting sentencing courts to disregard govem-ing law would dimmish the integrity and public reputation of the judicial system.” 25 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) provides that “plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of th…” — United States v. Perkins, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Anchor precedents:

United States v. Olano

Doctrines & tests:

manifest injustice standard ·

Olano plain-error framework ·

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b)