raised the objection “after the close of all of the evidence by a motion”); United States v. Walsh, 75 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1996) (“[B]oth objections are subject to review only for plain error. It is true that both issues were raised in the trial court after the verdict.... But the usual rule is that an objection must be made known at the time that the court is making its decision to act....”); United States v. Lara-Hernandez, 588 F.2d 272, 274 (9th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (“Absent plain error, a conviction will not be reversed on evidentiary grounds not revealed to the trial court at the time of the assertedly erroneous ruling, even though the omitted argument is eventually made at some later stage of the trial.”); cf. United States v. Gibbs, 739 F.2d 838, 849, 850 & n. 25 (3d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). As we noted in Pursley II, Mr. Wardell did
holding defendants objection untimely and insufficient to preserve  the issue for appeal where defendant made his constitutional objection not when the evidence was offered but during a motion to strike made after the government rested but noting that we are satisfied that in this instance the district court did not commit plain error footnote omitted holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that the district courts failure to give a required warning now embodied at rule 11b1 is reviewed under harmless error if objection was made in the district court or under plain error if no objection was made holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court