Opinion ID: 179055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Waiver of Challenge to Loss Calculation

Text: Because the loss amount was greater than $2.5 million, Knox's base offense level was increased by 18 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1). Knox initially filed an objection to this calculation in the presentence report, but withdrew the objection at the sentencing hearing. Before accepting the withdrawal, the court addressed defense counsel and Knox personally to confirm that he intended to withdraw this argument. The court queried defense counsel, Now you're withdrawing the 18-level objection because you believe [counsel] that the evidence shows more than $2.5 million? Knox's attorney replied, That's correct, Your Honor. The district court then asked Knox directly, Mr. Knox, do you agree with that?, to which Knox replied, Yes, Your Honor. The district court followed up, asking, Anybody force you to say that? ... Threatened you in any way? ... Promised you anything to get you to say that? Knox replied, No, sir. to each question. The district court then stated on the record that the objection was withdrawn. Despite this colloquy, Knox has now filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he challenges the district court's determination that the amount of the loss exceeded $2.5 million. Knox's statements on the record evince a knowing waiver as to the loss calculation issue. As the Supreme Court has explained, the difference between waiver and forfeiture is that forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, [whereas] waiver is the `intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.' United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (citation omitted). And we have held that a defendant waive[s] his right to challenge a sentencing calculation by initially objecting to the calculation, but later withdrawing the objection. United States v. Kincaid, 571 F.3d 648, 654 (7th Cir.2009) (citations omitted). Such is the case here, where Knox initially raised an objection to the loss calculation and then later withdrew it, as indicated in both his and defense counsel's statements on the record. Knox's waiver precludes our review of his challenge to the loss calculation because if there has been a valid waiver, there is no `error' for us to correct. United States v. Lakich, 23 F.3d 1203, 1207 (7th Cir.1994); see United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (7th Cir.2000) ([W]e cannot review waived issues at all because a valid waiver leaves no error for us to correct on appeal.).