Task: Text Completion
Input (English): as dictum, we are obligated “ ‘to accord great deference to Supreme Court dicta,’ absent a change in the legal landscape.” Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105, 108 n.3 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Colasuonno, 697 F.3d 164, 179 (2d Cir. 2012)). Harris has demonstrated no such change, and certainly none warranting a plain error conclusion. See United States v. Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83, 94 (2d Cir. 2012) (“‘The burden of establishing entitlement to relief for plain error is on the defendant claiming it.’ ” (brackets omitted) (quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004))). If anything, the post-Johnson landscape in this circuit suggests the contrary. See, e.g., United States v. Parisi, 821 F.3d 343, 347-48 (2d Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vargas, 564 F.3d 618, 623-24 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional   3583e2 modification (B) recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability (C) holding that a coa is a jurisdictional prerequisite (D) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody (E) holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody
Output (English): (A)