an upward departure under this policy statement.” We need not delve into this purported error deeply, for we think it is clear that the court would not have imposed a different sentence but for the alleged error. To the extent Coleman argues that the district court “double counted” his conviction for burglary of an inhabited dwelling — that is, relied on it to depart upwardly even though it was factored into his criminal history score — we do not read the district court as counting it twice. Rather, we understand the court as making the point that it thought that some of Coleman’s crimes involved what it considered violent conduct. Coleman also complains about the district court’s recitation of the facts of the underlying offense in its written reasons; however, 5th Cir.2004) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 13 . See United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d
holding that when a district court fails to provide reasons for imposing special conditions and the defendant fails to object we review for plain error holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court holding that plain error review applies where the defendant fails to object to the lack of an opportunity to allocute holding that plainerror review applies where the defendant fails to object to a constructive amendment holding that a defendant who fails to object to an error at a plea colloquy hearing must satisfy the plain error rule