context: . Gibson's counsel objected to the suspicion-less search condition. He did not identify laclc-of-notice as a basis for the objection, but he did not have an opportunity to do so. The government is therefore incorrect that our review should be limited to plain error.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 582 F.3d 974, 981-82
citation_a.parenthetical: reviewing notice challenge for plain error where counsel was permitted to explain objection to condition of supervised release but identified only substantive objections
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Mancinas-Flores, 588 F.3d 677, 686 (9th Cir.2009) (”[T]he Rules do not require a defendant to force an objection or exception into the record.”); cf. United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981-82 (9th Cir. 2009) (reviewing notice challenge for plain error where counsel was permitted to explain objection to condition of supervised release but identified only substantive objections).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 588 F.3d 677, 686
citation_b.parenthetical: "[T]he Rules do not require a defendant to force an objection or exception into the record."
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Mancinas-Flores, 588 F.3d 677, 686 (9th Cir.2009) (”[T]he Rules do not require a defendant to force an objection or exception into the record.”); cf. United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981-82 (9th Cir. 2009) (reviewing notice challenge for plain error where counsel was permitted to explain objection to condition of supervised release but identified only substantive objections).