did not raise the procedural objection he asserted on appeal after the district court imposed sentence. Id. at 1176. We held that it was clear that under plain error review the appellant’s procedural reasonableness argument under § 3553(c) could not succeed because the appellant did not argue on appeal that the court’s failure to explain his sentence affected his substantial rights. Id. at 1179. We emphasized that we would not supply such an argument for him. Id. Turning to the case before us, because Mr. Johnson did not raise any of the procedural arguments he asserts on appeal in the district court, he has the burden of demonstrating under plain error review that an error affected his substantial rights, i.e., that it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. See id. (<HOLDING>). We find that Mr. Johnson has not carried this
holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings holding that the affecting substantial rights language of rule 52b means that the error must have been prejudicial it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights