by examining the particulars of each case can the ‘careful balancing’ reflected in the plain error rule be preserved.”); United States v. Patterson, 241 F.3d 912, 913 (7th Cir.2001) (“When the appellate standard is plain error (as opposed to harmless error), even the clearest of blunders never requires reversal; it just permits reversal.”). For the majority to select a category of errors a priori that must be corrected on plain error review is inconsistent with the mandate of Olano to examine the facts of each case and the proceeding as a whole. Its approach cannot be squared with that of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court knows how to adopt categorical approaches and has indicated a willingness to do so under the third prong of Olano. See Johnson, 520 U.S. at 468-69, 117 S.Ct. 1544 (<HOLDING>). However, the Court has never adopted a
recognizing categorical approach to structural errors that presumptively satisfy the third prong of olano and listing classes of cases that present structural errors holding that instructional errors that do not categorically vitiate all the jurys findings  are trial errors as to which harmless error analysis applies not structural errors emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted quoting neder v united states 527 us 1 11 119 sct 1827 144 led2d 35 1999 holding that even if the error complained of was structural and affected substantial rights the fourth prong of olano was not met because of the overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted evidence of petitioners guilt holding that it is an abuse of discretion to make errors of law or clear errors of factual determination holding that in habeas proceedings brecht standard controls all trial as distinguished from structural errors