Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 163 U.S. at 658, 16 S.Ct. 1127. The Supreme Court has recognized that there are cases in which an error may seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings even “independent of the defendant’s innocence.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 736-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770. One such case is Silber v. United States, 370 U.S. 717, 82 S.Ct. 1287, 8 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962) (per curiam), in which the Court considered whether to notice a defect in an indictment. In its short per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that the defect in the indictment constituted reversible plain error even though the error was not raised in either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Silber, 370 U.S. at 717, 82 S.Ct. 1287; see also United States v. Brown, 995 F.2d 1493, 1504 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Clark, 412 F.2d 885, 887-88 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that failure to prove an essential element of an offense does not constitute fundamental error which may be raised for the first time on appeal (B) holding that in the absence of a government crossappeal an appellate court may not sua sponte correct a district court error if the correction would be to the defendants detriment (C) holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming (D) holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error (E) holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error
Output (English): holding that in the absence of a government crossappeal an appellate court may not sua sponte correct a district court error if the correction would be to the defendants detriment