Opinion ID: 2779651
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forfeiture and the Burden to Show Plain Error

Text: “It is the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 119 (1976). If a theory is not “intentionally relinquished or abandoned,” but instead “simply wasn’t raised before the district court,” it is forfeited and may only be reversed under the plain error standard. Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (10th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Robertson, 568 F.3d 1203, 1210 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[U]nless Defendant lodged a specific objection to a procedural error at sentencing, our review is limited to plain error.”). “We find plain error only when there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) which affects substantial rights, and (4) which seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2007). The appellant “has the burden to satisfy the plain-error rule.” United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002); see also Richison, 634 F.3d at 1131 (“If a newly raised legal theory is entitled to appellate review at all . . . it may form a basis for reversal only if the appellant can satisfy the elements of the plain error standard of review.”). “And the failure to do so—the failure to argue for plain error and its application on appeal—surely -7- marks the end of the road for an argument for reversal not first presented to the district court.” Richison, 634 F.3d at 1131; see United States v. De Vaughn, 694 F.3d 1141, 1158-59 (10th Cir. 2012) (“Because Defendant has not even tried to show how the alleged errors were ‘plain,’ we need not engage a full discussion of the merits.”)