whether-courts-can-consider-religion-as-aggravating-factor-in-sentencing

QUESTION PRESENTED The questions presented in this case are as follows: 1. Is it permissible for courts to consider religion as an aggravating factor in determining sentences, or to favor a religion by sentencing defendants who used religion or religious affinity to perpetrate an offense more harshly than defendants who commit similar offenses which are secular in nature? 2. Where the defendants repeatedly argued that sentencing for religious affinity frauds should be treated no differently than sentencing for secular fraud schemes, and made clear that they wished that the court not use religion as an aggravating sentencing factor, did the Ninth Circuit, in applying the plain error standard of review, disregard the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020), which interpreted Rule 51(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure not to require parties to make “formal exceptions,” use “any particular language” or “label,” or wait for the court’s ruling, in order to preserve an objection, and held that claims are preserved where the parties give notice of the action they wish the court to take?