Whether due process is satisfied when the government relies solely on the district court's electronic case filing system to notify defendant's counsel of a restitution request

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010), the Court held that compliance with the statutory deadline for determining restitution was unnecessary, effectively allowing district courts to order restitution “at any time after sentencing[,]” 560 U.S. at 621 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (emphasis omitted). When restitution is ordered under Dolan, is due process satisfied when the government relies solely on the district court’s electronic case filing system to notify defendant’s counsel of a restitution request, even when circumstances suggest that counsel of record is not actively representing the defendant? 2. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, may a court of appeals find a defendant forfeited claimed sentencing errors without first finding that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity to object to the error in the district court? i