traffic in Vicky’s images and those attributable to her original physical abuse; or impose restitution in an amount similar to the restitution imposed in other cases-involving images of Vicky. He also argues the district court increased the restitution award by $1,734 as retribution for his success in Benoit I. Generally, “[w]e review the factual findings underlying a restitution order for clear error and the amount of restitution imposed for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Bowling, 619 F.3d 1175, 1187 (10th Cir.2010). But Benoit did not make these arguments below, and he makes no effort on appeal to establish reversal is warranted under our plain-error review. Thus, we decline to reach these claims. See Campbell v. City of Spencer, 111 F.3d 1073, 1079-80 (10th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion The judgment of the district court
holding that the plaintiff waived his right to argue an issue on appeal by failing to object below thereby denying the trial court the opportunity to correct its mistakes holding that appellant abandoned argument by failing to argue it in body of brief holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error holding appellant waives argument not raised below by failing to argue for plain error and its application on appeal holding that even when the issue is constitutional in nature an argument is not preserved on appeal unless the appellant raised and made the argument at trial and obtained a ruling on it nor will a particular theory be addressed on appeal if it was not presented below