(2d Cir.1999). Thomas must therefore show (1) error, (2) that is plain and (3) that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). If Thomas carries this burden, we have discretion to notice the error, but will do so only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. We have already held that travel by the victim’s agent is sufficient to satisfy the interstate travel requirement of § 2314. While the district court’s use of the word “representative” in its instruction was not the exact language of O’Connor and Steffen, it was not objected to and does not rise to the level of plain error. See United States v. Weintraub, 273 F.3d 139, 152 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we fail to see how any alleged
holding that an error whose identification requires the extension of precedent is not plain 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 a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious holding that an error cannot be plain unless it is clear under current law quotation omitted