Opinion ID: 220580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Magnitude of the Increase

Text: Saani argues the district court also erred by failing to explain why his conduct warranted an increase of four levels instead of some lesser number. The district court found the disruptive effect of Saani's conduct was huge and particularly harmful because it disrupted the Government's functioning during a time of war. Saani did not ask at his hearing for a more elaborate explanation and the district court's failure to provide one sua sponte was not so plain an error  if it was an error at all  that the trial judge and [the] prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it. United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283, 286 (D.C.Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)); see also United States v. Tann, 532 F.3d 868, 872 (D.C.Cir. 2008) ([o]rdinarily an objection not made in the district court is reviewable on appeal only for plain error).