Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): restriction at issue. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed, we AFFIRM the district court. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 . The cases relied on by the Government do not persuade us otherwise. In both United States v. Acosta-Colón, 741 F.3d 179 (1st Cir.2013), and United States v. Christi, 682 F.3d 138 (1st Cir.2012), the issue the defendant later raised on appeal — closing the proceedings to the public — had been squarely presented to defense counsel in the district court, but defense counsel failed to raise an objection. See Acosta-Colón, 741 F.3d at 187 (<HOLDING>); Christi, 682 F.3d at 142 (1st Cir.2012) (same 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defense counsel waived objection where he remained silent despite the district courts specific inquiry during a side bar conference whether there were any concerns about closing the courtroom to the public (B) holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal (C) holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection (D) holding that defendant acquiesced to counsels waiver of right to be present at bench conference where trial judge advised everyone in courtroom including defendant about the topic of the bench conference and defendant raised no objection to his absence (E) holding that defendant acquiesced in inchambers conference occurring in his absence when trial court discussed the subject of the conference and its ruling and neither defense counsel nor defendant raised an objection
Output (English): holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection