days’ imprisonment. At most, the government’s additional comments were ambiguous. Accordingly, any error was not plain. See United States v. Dorsey, 677 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). 2. The district court did not commit
holding that defendant could not show district courts alleged error in considering  3553a2a when imposing a revocation sentence was clear or obvious under plain error review holding that an error is plain only if it is clear under current law when there is no binding precedent on point an instruction typically will not be plain error holding that plain error will be identified only if 1 there is error 2 that is clear or obvious rather than subject to reasonable dispute 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously impugns fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that failure to object at trial should cause this court to review solely for plain error ie error that is clear or obvious and materially prejudicial to an appellants substantial rights holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious