65 ua sponte review, appellate courts must chart their course following the guideposts set forth by the United States Supreme Court: In exceptional cireumstances, especially in criminal cases, appellate courts, in the pub-lie interest, may, of their own motion, notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936); see also United States v. Pryce, 938 F.2d 1343, 1348 (D.C.Cir.1991) (conducting sua sponte analysis only because the record was not complex and resolution of the issue was easy, "beyond serious debate"); Lewis v. United States, 92 F.2d 952, 953-54 (10th Cir.1937) (<HOLDING>). Critical to these considerations of fairness
holding that federal statute conferred federalquestion jurisdiction in cases involving the bank of the united states holding that this court has jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals in cases involving a sentence of life imprisonment or death holding that in criminal cases involving life or liberty of accused united states appellate courts may correct errors that were not challenged or reserved by parties holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties holding that new york convention governed award rendered in the united states that arose out of dispute involving two nondomestic parties and one united states corporation