on Defendant’s person on June 30, 2007 were the fruits of the drug trade. While the district court explicitly overruled Defendant’s objection to the means by which the currency found in his possession was converted to 62.32 grams of actual methamphetamine, it did not squarely address Defendant’s factual contention that he acquired the $8,450.00 through his work as a rapper. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B) (requiring district courts to rule on disputed portions of the PSR or determine that such a ruling is unnecessary). Defendant recognizes that even if the district court’s lack of explanation violated Rule 32(i)(3)(B), we may review only for plain error, as he failed to specifically object to this omission at sentencing. See United States v. Cook, 550 F.3d 1292, 1297-98 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Because Defendant cannot satisfy the third
holding that a defendant who fails to raise rule 11 error at trial has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule holding that plainerror review applies where the defendant fails to object to a constructive amendment holding that a party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection but also by making the wrong specific objection holding that plainerror review applies when a defendant fails to make a specific rule 32i3b objection based on a district courts failure to resolve a factual dispute holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review