several times during the revocation hearing, we are not convinced that the court was referring to the need for the sentence to reflect “just punishment” as contemplated by § 3553(a)(2)(A). See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006) (discussing the difference between district court sanctioning a defendant for violating his supervised release terms and punishing the defendant for conduct underlying the revocation). When the court first mentioned “punishment” after Probation Officer Hernandez’s testimony, the court appeared to be considering the appropriate disposition upon finding a violation of LeBoeufs release conditions. See § 3588(e)(4) (providing that district court has di d not be clear or obvious. See United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d 750, 759 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hernandez, 419 Fed.Appx. 521
holding that because of unsettled case law district courts error was not obvious and therefore not plain holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious recognizing limitations existence in other circuits holding that when our circuits law is unsettled and other federal circuits have reached divergent conclusions the claimed error could not be clear or obvious under the second prong of the plain error test holding the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the error satisfies each prong of the plain error test