context: Under these circumstances, we see no reasons to deviate from our general rule that the plain-error standard governs the review of unpreserved errors.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 535 U.S. 73, 73
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that failure to review unpreserved errors under the plain-error standard creates a perverse incentive for defendants to "simply relax and wait to see if the sentence later struck him [or her] as satisfactory"
citation_a.sentence: See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 73, 122 S.Ct. 1043 (noting that failure to review unpreserved errors under the plain-error standard creates a perverse incentive for defendants to “simply relax and wait to see if the sentence later struck him [or her] as satisfactory”); see also United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir.2014) (“Because [defendant] neither objected to the judge’s involvement in plea discussions, nor made an attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, we consider his appellate argument under the rigorous plain error standard.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 774 F.3d 812, 815
citation_b.parenthetical: "Because [defendant] neither objected to the judge's involvement in plea discussions, nor made an attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, we consider his appellate argument under the rigorous plain error standard."
citation_b.sentence: See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 73, 122 S.Ct. 1043 (noting that failure to review unpreserved errors under the plain-error standard creates a perverse incentive for defendants to “simply relax and wait to see if the sentence later struck him [or her] as satisfactory”); see also United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir.2014) (“Because [defendant] neither objected to the judge’s involvement in plea discussions, nor made an attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, we consider his appellate argument under the rigorous plain error standard.”).