52” in order to capture decisions at law recognizing that unpreserved charging errors warrant appellate review only in “exceptional circumstances”). Plaintiff here fails to satisfy these requirements. a. No Clear or Obvious Error (1) Gamer and O’Bert Do Not Clearly Establish a Charging Requirement for Deadly Force Cases Plaintiff cannot satisfy the first two requirements of plain error because no controlling precedent clearly mandates that a district court charge a jury that a precondition to the use of “force highly likely to have deadly effects is ... probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to others.” Ante at 334; see Henderson v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 1127, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Youngs, 687 F.3d 56, 59 (2d
recognizing plain or fundamental error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that omission was not plain error holding that defendants who do not object to jury instructions at trial are subject to a plain error standard of review on appeal recognizing plain error to require authoritative legal decision on subject