Opinion ID: 692949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mr. Williams as a Category III Criminal

Text: 22 Lastly, Mr. Williams alleges that the district court made three errors in calculating his criminal history category. We review the district court's application of the Guidelines de novo, United States v. Banashefski, 928 F.2d 349, 351 (10th Cir.1991), and we accept the court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Roberts, 898 F.2d 1465, 1468-69 (10th Cir.1990). 23 Mr. Williams contends that the district court gave him one point for a prior sentence of marijuana possession that was, in fact, part of the instant offense and therefore not a prior sentence under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(1). In addition, he challenges the two points assigned to him under U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) for committing the instant offense while on probation for a prior criminal conviction. Because Mr. Williams failed to object in the district court to these calculations, which are heavily dependent upon the lower court's factual determinations, the Defendant has waived his right to raise these issues on appeal. United States v. Saucedo, 950 F.2d 1508, 1518 (10th Cir.1991). 24 Mr. Williams finally asserts that the district court mistakenly added his criminal history points. The presentence report does reveal a calculation error. However, while Mr. Williams should have been given a criminal history score of five instead of six, the mistake does not affect the court's determination of Mr. Williams' criminal history at a level III. 25 AFFIRMED.