the district court erred in failing to provide at least a generalized statement of its reasons for imposing the District of New Mexico’s special sex offender conditions for supervised release. But because Barela failed to make this argument below, the government points out that we must review this assertion for plain error and argues that Barela fails to show the error justifies vacating the conditions. Under plain error review, we may vacate special conditions of supervised release only if the record reveals no basis for the conditions. If the record reveals a basis, there is no reasonable probability that but for the error the defendant’s sentence would be different and thus the proceeding’s fairness was not impacted. See United States v. Kieffer, 681 F.3d 1143, 1172 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); see also Bums, 775 F.3d at 1224-25
holding that we review for plain error whether the government breached its plea obligations when the defendant fails to object at sentencing holding that where a defendant fails to challenge his plea in district court he must establish plain error holding that plain error review applies where the defendant fails to object to the lack of an opportunity to allocute holding that when a district court fails to provide reasons for imposing special conditions and the defendant fails to object we review for plain error holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court