of uncharged misconduct where the appellant, while chatting online with adults, discusses committing sexual acts with minors; 5) The trial counsel made an unduly inflammatory sentencing argument; 6) The guilty finding for the offense of attempt to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is factually insufficient; 7) The military judge erred by refusing to instruct the members on the defense of voluntary abandonment; and 8) The military judge erred in admitting derivative evidence from an illegal pretextual telephone call. AOEs 6-8 are raised pursuant to Uni as error, we note that the military judge properly instructed the members on these elements with additional tailoring based on the evidence admitted during trial. Record at 466-68. 14 . See Berk, 652 F.3d at 138 (<HOLDING>), but see United States v. Doyle, 2007 WL
holding that there can be no plain error where neither we nor the supreme court has addressed an issue recognizing circuit split holding that an issue mentioned in a brief but not addressed is waived recognizing that no federal circuit has addressed the issue holding that a  2255 hearing is permitted on an issue previously addressed on direct appeal when there has been an intervening change in the law