Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that may be reviewed by this Court for plain error, even sua sponte, whereas an active inducement, acquiescence, or other affirmative act demonstrates an intentional waiver of an issue or right that this Court will not notice even under plain-error review. Williams v. People, 59 V.I. 1024, 1033 (V.I. 2013). And while, in this case, it was Pickering’s counsel — rather than Pickering himself — who affirmatively stated at oral argument that he does not object to a retrial on unauthorized possession or reckless endangerment, defense counsel is authorized to waive a double jeopardy claim on behalf of the defendant on appeal unless doing so would rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. See, e.g., Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S. Ct. 3308, 77 L. Ed. 2d 987 (1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bobo, 586 F.2d 355, 364 n.6 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that issues not raised in an initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned (B) holding that issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed abandoned (C) holding that the decision of what issues to brief on appeal belongs solely to the attorney and not the criminal defendant (D) holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief (E) holding issues of fact in dispute are solely for the jury
Output (English): holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief