today whether Demers would prevail under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Because Demers did not object to the challenged condition before the district court, he must not only demonstrate the existence of an error; he must also show that it is plain. See United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc). An error is plain if it is “obvious” or “clear under current law.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. In light of Demers’s history of sexual abuse and lack of children, and because we have never held that a condition barring contact with minors is invalid without an exception for contact pursuant to prior approval, we do not believe that imposing such an unqualified condition constitutes an error that is clear under current law. See Ristine, 335 F.3d at 695 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, even assuming that Demers could
holding that because of unsettled case law district courts error was not obvious and therefore not plain holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law holding that an error cannot be plain unless it is clear under current law quotation omitted holding that an error is plain only if it is clear under current law when there is no binding precedent on point an instruction typically will not be plain error holding that a condition banning possession of pornography did not constitute plain error because the current law concerning this issue is unsettled