context: The government's contention is not unreasonable under our general law of forfeiture and plain error.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 491 F.3d 1173, 1178
citation_a.parenthetical: seeking to clarify Tenth Circuit precedent by concluding that where a defendant "did not object on procedural grounds under SS 3553(a) or (c
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2007) (seeking to clarify Tenth Circuit precedent by concluding that where a defendant “did not object on procedural grounds under § 3553(a) or (c) after the district court imposed his sentence, he has forfeited his right to appeal this issue and our review is only for plain error”); see also United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir.2005) (where defendant argued that “the district court erroneously sentenced him to consecutive sentences under a mandatory guidelines system,” holding that “we review for plain error” because defendant “did not raise his Booker argument in the district court”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 409 F.3d 1236, 1242
citation_b.parenthetical: where defendant argued that "the district court erroneously sentenced him to consecutive sentences under a mandatory guidelines system," holding that "we review for plain error" because defendant "did not raise his Booker argument in the district court"
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2007) (seeking to clarify Tenth Circuit precedent by concluding that where a defendant “did not object on procedural grounds under § 3553(a) or (c) after the district court imposed his sentence, he has forfeited his right to appeal this issue and our review is only for plain error”); see also United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir.2005) (where defendant argued that “the district court erroneously sentenced him to consecutive sentences under a mandatory guidelines system,” holding that “we review for plain error” because defendant “did not raise his Booker argument in the district court”).