reasons that the district court “would not have sustained any objection” to the procedure because the court “clearly did not believe ... the settlement conference violated Rule 11(c)(1).” These arguments are unavailing for a number of reasons. First, nothing in the record indicates that Myers’s participation in the settlement conference was anything but voluntary — a point Myers’s appellate counsel conceded during oral argument. Myers requested the procedure and could have thereafter “unilaterally withdraw[n his] request for a settlement conference at any time,” N.D. Cal.Crim. R. 11 — 1(d), but he simply failed to do so. This failure supports reviewing Myers’s alleged error under our plain-error standard. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the record establishes that Myers’s
holding that plainerror review applies where the defendant fails to object to a constructive amendment holding that we will not consider an argument of plain error where the defendant has neither mentioned the plainerror standard nor made any attempt to show how he can satisfy that standard holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review holding that a silent defendant has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule holding that a defendant who fails to raise rule 11 error at trial has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule