Does the holding in Molina -Martinez apply to non -Guidelines calculation sentencing errors, such as the clear Rule 32 violation here? If not, how does an appellant satisfy the third prong of the plain -error standard , where the nature of the plain error results in a silent record on what the court would have done absent that error ?

Is a district court required to address or respond to a defendant's nonfrivolous mitigation and sentencing arguments in support of a particular sentence, or can the court ignore or silently consider them without explanation?

Whether the holding in Molina-Martinez applies to sentencing-errors, such as the clear Rule 32 violation here