Opinion ID: 5175679
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: Before delving into the merits of these arguments, we address two matters concerning the standard of review. First, the government contends that Loving “invited”—and thus waived—the errors he asserts on appeal by accepting the government’s view that the correct guideline calculation depended on whether note 6 of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 applied here. We disagree. The sentencing transcript shows that Loving objected explicitly “to the increase under 3C1.2, the upward variance taking it to 24.” Loving is not challenging on appeal any choice he urged the district court to make. There was no invited error here. The government also argues that even if Loving did not invite the error, he forfeited his arguments by failing to raise them in the district court. Again we disagree. Loving clearly preserved his challenge to the guideline range. In his ﬁlings before the sentencing hearing, he argued for an oﬀense level of 23 and a sentencing range of 51 to 63 months, as he does on appeal. At the hearing, he objected to the court’s use of oﬀense level 24. These arguments preserved an objection to a higher oﬀense level and sentencing range. Loving was not required to take a later “exception” to the court’s actions after its decision. See United States v. Pennington, 908 F.3d 234, 238 (7th Cir. 2018). “[T]he Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Criminal Procedure require a litigant to make known the position it advocates and to present evidence and argument for that position,” but they “do not require a litigant to complain about a judicial choice after it has been made.” United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901, 910 (7th Cir. 2009); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 51. No. 21-1382 7