challenged the evidence on the ERISA false statement offense (Count Ten). Finally, the defendants raised numerous contentions of sentencing error, including the contention that, because their convictions on the ERISA theft offenses were improper, so were the increases in their Sentencing Guidelines offense levels for jeopardizing the safety and soundness of the pension plan. We rejected all of the defendants’ arguments and, thus, affirmed their convictions and sentences. See United States v. Jackson, 524 F.3d 532 (4th Cir.2008). II. A. The government, having now decided that it erred in pursuing the ERISA theft offenses and that we erred in affirming those convictions, confessed error in the Supreme Court. See Young v. United States, 315 U.S. 257, 258, 62 S.Ct. 510, 86 L.Ed. 832 (1942) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the government’s “confession
holding that courts of appeal should only correct a forfeited error at the trial level in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result holding that the district court should grant a motion for a new trial when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice emphasis added holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that error in classifying defendant as a violent offender caused a miscarriage of justice recognizing that the public trust reposed in the law enforcement officers of the government requires that they be quick to confess error when in their opinion a miscarriage of justice may result from their remaining silent