Opinion ID: 4581880
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: when the district court misstated brito’s

Text: CRIMINAL HISTORY, COUNSEL’S “NO OBJECTION” WAS A FORFEITURE, NOT WAIVER Though the parties agree that Brito’s lawyer said “no objection” at sentencing, they disagree about its import. The Government claims that it was a waiver, citing our recent decision in United States v. James, 955 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2020). It reads James as creating a per se rule: “[W]hen a litigant 6 ‘affirmative[ly]’ assents in the district court, then ‘he has waived any basis to seek review’ on appeal.” Appellee’s Br. 8 (quoting James, 955 F.3d at 345). Not so. James held no such thing. We will review for plain error.
per se rules In Olano, the Supreme Court laid out the distinction between forfeiture and waiver: “Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” 507 U.S. at 733 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938)). To be a waiver, the failure to assert a right must be intentional, and the right relinquished must be known. Anything less is mere forfeiture. See id. The only way to assess a waiver is to review the whole record. See Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Rosa, 399 F.3d 283, 291 (3d Cir. 2005). James reaffirmed this approach. In James, an attorney refused to object to the use of a chart as a demonstrative aid. 955 F.3d at 341, 344. He affirmatively stated “no objection” to such a use. Id. We found that he had waived any objection to the use of the chart—but not just because of his words. Instead, we looked to context. We noted that the attorney had had a chance to review the chart in advance. Id. at 344. He had objected to its being offered into evidence under Rule 1006. Id. He had even objected to using a different chart as a demonstrative aid later in the trial. Id. Finally, on appeal James never disputed that his lawyer had waived the claim. Id. at 345. “Based on this record . . . and his failure to dispute waiver on appeal,” we explained, “James’s affirmative no-objection 7 statement to the chart’s demonstrative use” amounted to waiver. Id. James did not create a per se rule equating “no objection” with waiver. Given Olano, any such rule would be improper. So Brito’s lawyer’s statement does not itself prove waiver. Context controls. B. In context, Brito’s “no objection” shows forfeiture, not waiver Context shows that Brito’s counsel neither intentionally relinquished nor abandoned a known right. Rather, she failed to timely assert a right. That is forfeiture, not waiver. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 733. As she explained: “I have to be honest, I wasn’t making a time line when the Court was speaking.” App. 53. “But if [the statement] tracks what’s in the Presentence Report, then, yes, it is” acceptable. Id. As we will discuss, what the District Court said did not “track what’s in the Presentence Report.” Thus, Brito’s lawyer never endorsed it. Even if she had, Brito’s case is a far cry from James’s. Brito’s appellate counsel does dispute waiver on appeal. And the record here reflects counsel’s honest error. That is a forfeiture, not waiver.