to conclude that there was plain error when the prosecutor asked whether another witness testified “inaccurately” because neither the Supreme Court nor our court had yet ruled on whether asking about “inaccurate” testimony was improper. Id. Similarly, neither the Supreme Court nor this court has ruled that asking about “invented” testimony is improper, particularly when the term is first used by the testifying defendant. Notably, Greer cites the exact cases cited by the majority, but acknowledges that these cases concluding that questioning was improper are limited to “one particular context: when the prosecutor specifically asked the defendant whether another witness was lying....” Id. (emphasis in the original); see also United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 612 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). The facts of this case diverge substantially
holding that plain error review applies to objections that were not raised when the district court asked the appropriate question at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing holding that where the government has not presented evidence at the hearing concerning the appropriate amount of restitution    the imposition of the restitution order constitutes plain error holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings holding that there was no plain error when the prosecutor asked the defendant questions concerning a rogue agent during a fairly argumentative crossexamination in order to poke holes in the defendants version of the facts holding that party was an agent under the plain terms of his contracts