Unless district court’s allegedly erroneous decision on issue is contrary to authority from Supreme Court or this Circuit, error is not plain

SENTENCING United States v. Baum, 07-6257, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2008)(amended by order Feb. 10, 2009)(W.D. Oklahoma). Appeal of convictions and sentence for wire fraud and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1957. HELD: District court did not commit plain error in sentencing by finding defendant intended $1.4 million loss to victims where no authority from Supreme Court or this Circuit clearly defines intent as requiring either knowledge that loss is virtual certainty or that loss is only probable. When no authority from the Supreme Court or this circuit compels determination that there was error and there is contrary authority in other circuits, the error can rarely be plain. Read the opinion here.