at the time, which we know now was in error”); United States v. Ruiz-Gea, 340 F.3d 1181, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003) (“In general, for an error to be contrary to well-settled law, either the Supreme Court or this court must have addressed the issue.”). Mr. Wardell does not identify any Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decisions that have addressed the psychological-impact argument relative to the mandated use of stun belts, much less any decisions from these two courts that indicate that the district court’s stun-belt order was error on psychological-impact grounds, and we are not aware of any such decisions. Accordingly, the district court’s assumed error in ordering Mr. Wardell to wear a stun belt was not obvious and clear. See, e.g., United States v. Poe, 556 F.3d 1113, 1129 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>), petition for cert. filed, ■ — ■ U.S.L.W. -
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 recognizing that no federal circuit has addressed the issue holding that plain error standard not satisfied stating that defendant has pointed to no supreme court or tenth circuit decisions directly addressing the guidelines issue he raises nor do we know of any holding that the tenth circuit if faced with this issue would follow those circuit court of appeals  that have permitted the use of class action waivers in arbitration agreements holding that there can be no plain error where neither we nor the supreme court has addressed an issue