not emerge until immediately before the district court pronounced sentence). Nevertheless, neither of the Langs filed a § 455(a) motion at trial. 3 . Both Langs cite United States v. Gigax, 605 F.2d 507, 510 (10th Cir.1979), for the proposition that we review unraised § 455 complaints under an abuse of discretion standard. We decided Gigax, however, before the Supreme Court released United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Olano directs us to review un-raised errors under a four-step plain error standard. See id. at 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Accordingly, to the extent that Gigax reviewed unraised § 455 error for an abuse of discretion, following Olano, it is no longer good law. See United States v. Hernandez-Rodriguez, 352 F.3d 1325, 1333 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Specifically, the government introduced
holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable holding that when intervening supreme court case law is clearly irreconcilable with a prior circuit decision a panel of this court is bound by the later and controlling authority and should reject the prior circuit opinion holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority holding that an intervening supreme court case can overturn circuit precedent