Opinion ID: 4098814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remedial Discretion

Text: We further note that even if Comrie could satisfy the first three prongs of our plain error review standard, his appeal does not present circumstances warranting our discretionary intervention. Upon plain error review, “we may exercise our discretion ‘to remedy [an] error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Cordova-Soto, 804 F.3d at 722 (quoting Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135) (ellipsis and original brackets omitted). Comrie’s failure to raise RFRA arguments below deprived the district court of its best opportunity to consider the “fact-driven” RFRA analysis, and left the Government with “no opportunity to present factual evidence of either its compelling governmental interests or the legitimate . . . objectives to be served. . . .” See Muhammad, 165 F.3d at 337. “[O]ne of the most important purposes of the plain error rule . . . is to require parties to present issues to the district court for resolution, and potentially avoid unnecessary, wasteful appeals as to issues that the district court might have decided in the appellant’s favor, had the court simply been given an opportunity to do so.” Id. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that “the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings are not seriously affected by our discretionary decision to enforce our long-standing, well-established, salutary requirement that issues be first considered by the district court.” See id. 6 Case: 15-31072 Document: 00513762282 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/16/2016 No. 15-31072