asked defense counsel the following: So, are you in agreement that in order to plead guilty to a conspiracy to distribute one kilogram and more of heroin, your client need not allocute nor otherwise be shown as part of the plea to have known that the drug he was unlawfully distributing was heroin or that the amount he was unlawfully distributing was one kilogram or more, as long as he knew that he was distributing an unlawful drug, and that he knew it was in ... a significant amount? Defense counsel agreed. This constitutes the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right” and is, therefore, not appealable. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); id. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Yur-Leung, 51 F.3d 1116,1121
holding that intentional waiver unlike the mere failure to make the timely assertion of the right necessarily extinguishes a claim altogether and prevents even plain error review holding that a district courts failure to make the necessary findings related to a restitution order constitutes plain error holding that the defendant necessarily bears the burden of satisfying the third prong of the plain error test holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error