Whether the plain error standard requires a 'manifest miscarriage of justice' to correct a forfeited error affecting substantial rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. In Puckett v. United States, 556 US 129, 135 (2009) this Court held that under the fourth prong of plain error review, “[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). to meet that standard, is it necessary as the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals required in this case that the error be one that “...be reviewed only for a manifest miscarriage of justice” and necessitates reversal under Rule 52(b). [This issue has recently been argued before this Court in No. 16-9493, Rosales-Mireles v. United States]. 2. Whether the written judgment—which conflicts with the oral pronouncement at sentencing and is obviously incorrect on the face—violates petitioner’s rights under the Eight Amendment and necessitates reversal under rule 52(b). In this case, the Criminal Monetary Penalties provision of the judgment orders restitution in the amount of $37, 544, 944.16, but reflects losses of $0.00. i No. In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term 2017 PATRICK LANIER, Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Patrick Lanier respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the opinion and judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on January 2, 2018.