United States v. Henry Affit Lejarde-Rada

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it”
• noting that the Rule 11 colloquy aims to ensure, among other things, that the defendant “know[s] and understand[s] the consequences of his guilty plea”
• holding “there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it”
• explaining that an asserted error is not “plain” unless the issue is squarely resolved by “the explicit language of a statute or rule” or binding “precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court”
• stating that, when the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, plain error cannot exist in absence of precedent from the Supreme Court or our Court directly resolving the issue
• explaining that “where the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).