context: A review of the record reveals that Defendants did argue, during their Rule 29 motions, that the government had not proved the MS was subject to United States jurisdiction; but Defendants made no objection to the district court's failure to instruct the jury that it must find that the MS was subject to United States jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, we would normally agree with the government that plain error review applies.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 810 F.2d 1010, 1014
citation_a.parenthetical: district court has no duty to interpret imaginatively what lawyers say
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Madruga, 810 F.2d 1010, 1014 (11th Cir.1987) (district court has no duty to interpret imaginatively what lawyers say).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 62 F.3d 1374, 1380-81
citation_b.parenthetical: to preserve objection to jury instructions, party must object before jury retires, stating distinct grounds for objection
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Starke, 62 F.3d 1374, 1380-81 (11th Cir.1995) (to preserve objection to jury instructions, party must object before jury retires, stating distinct grounds for objection).