law of the case doctrine was not referenced or argued by Hendrix. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[I]f the theory simply wasn’t raised before the district court, we usually hold it forfeited.”). The sentencing transcript is consistent with the brief Hendrix submitted in response to the district court’s order to show cause; there is no mention of the law of the case doctrine or any exception thereto. Thus, we have no doubt Hendrix’s law of the case argument is forfeited. The government argues this court should decline to consider Hendrix’s argument and deny his appeal because he failed to argue for the application of plain error review of the forfeited claim in his opening brief and, thus, has waived the issue presented on appeal. Id. at 1128-29 (<HOLDING>); id. at 1131 (holding, in a civil matter, that
holding forfeited theories will be reversed on appeal only if the appellant can satisfy the plain error standard holding plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context holding that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context holding prevonn that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context holding that we will not consider an argument of plain error where the defendant has neither mentioned the plainerror standard nor made any attempt to show how he can satisfy that standard