Opinion ID: 3010319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Knobloch did not raise before the district court any of the three alleged errors he relies on before us.2 Accordingly, we will review Knobloch's judgment of conviction and sentence solely for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); 18 U.S.C. S 3741; United States v. Oser, 107 F.3d 1080, 1088 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 206 (1997). In United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993), the Supreme Court held that, in order for an appellate court to find plain error, it must first find 1) an error 2) that is plain and 3) that affects substantial rights. Even if all three of these prerequisites are met, an appellate court may correct an error to which no objection was made only if (4) the error `seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'  Johnson v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1549 (1997) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732) (internal quotation marks omitted). _________________________________________________________________ 2. Two months after he entered his plea and on the same day that he filed his objections to the PSI, Knobloch moved to withdraw his guilty plea on grounds not relevant to this appeal. The motion did not refer to the district court's misdescription of the elements of the offense charged in Count 5. The district court denied the motion immediately prior to sentencing. 7