context: Whatever the perceived inadequacy of the district court's recitation of its reasons, the district court's sentencing decision was amply supported by evidence the government proffered at sentencing -- evidence that was neither contested nor countered by the defense. The defendant thus received a sentence merited by the evidence, and we cannot say -- as we would have to in order to find plain error -- that, but for the claimed error, the defendant's sentence would have been any different.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 405 F.3d 814, 819
citation_a.parenthetical: stating defendant can meet his burden on prong three "by demonstrating a reasonable probability that had the district court ap plied the [proper] sentencing framework, he would have received a lesser sentence"
citation_a.sentence: See id. at 1298 (defendant could not meet the third prong of plain error in his challenge to the adequacy of findings under Rule 32(i)(3)(B) given the presence of sufficient evidence to support the enhancement); United States v. Gore, 298 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir.2002) (“If the defendant does not object and there is evidence to sustain the enhancement, the error [under § 3553’s open court provision] is not reversible under the plain error standard.”); United States v. Orlandez-Gamboa, 185 Fed.Appx. 86, 87 n. 1 (2d Cir.2006) (no plain error in failure to make adequate findings in support of enhancement under § 3B1.1 because “there is evidence to sustain the enhancement”); see also United States v. Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d 814, 819 (10th Cir.2005) (stating defendant can meet his burden on prong three “by demonstrating a reasonable probability that had the district court ap plied the [proper] sentencing framework, he would have received a lesser sentence”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: no plain error in failure to make adequate findings in support of enhancement under SS 3B1.1 because "there is evidence to sustain the enhancement"
citation_b.sentence: See id. at 1298 (defendant could not meet the third prong of plain error in his challenge to the adequacy of findings under Rule 32(i)(3)(B) given the presence of sufficient evidence to support the enhancement); United States v. Gore, 298 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir.2002) (“If the defendant does not object and there is evidence to sustain the enhancement, the error [under § 3553’s open court provision] is not reversible under the plain error standard.”); United States v. Orlandez-Gamboa, 185 Fed.Appx. 86, 87 n. 1 (2d Cir.2006) (no plain error in failure to make adequate findings in support of enhancement under § 3B1.1 because “there is evidence to sustain the enhancement”); see also United States v. Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d 814, 819 (10th Cir.2005) (stating defendant can meet his burden on prong three “by demonstrating a reasonable probability that had the district court ap plied the [proper] sentencing framework, he would have received a lesser sentence”).