U.S. v. Scott

Defendant waived his arguments on appeal, even though defendant asserted that Dist. Ct. erred when imposing additional 36-month term of supervised release after finding that defendant had violated provision of original term of supervised release by failing to calculate or address advisory guideline range and in failing to allow defendant opportunity to allocute before imposing said extension of supervised release. Record showed that defendant had waived both issues, where: (1) defense counsel stated in response to govt. recommendation of imposition of additional 36-month term of supervised release, "we have no objection to extending the period of mandatory supervised release;” and (2) defendant’s counsel interrupted defendant as he began to allocute, and, after conferring with defendant, confirmed that defendant had nothing further to say. As such, defendant’s failure to raise either issue in Dist. Ct. precluded him from raising them on appeal. (Dissent filed.)