the district court permissibly found that she had not done so and, therefore, a condition of the agreement was not met. 4. The district court did not plainly err in including $13,500 of interest and consequential losses as part of the amount of loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 (2000) and as part of the restitution required under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2). With respect to the amount of loss, exclusion of the $13,500 would not change the sentencing calculation, so we need not decide whether the court erred. With respect to restitution, Defendant failed to raise this issue below and therefore failed to develop a factual record that would permit meaningful review; accordingly, we decline to reach the merits of the claim. See United States v. Hemandez-Ramirez, 254 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1563
holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal holding that the defendant waived any argument on the issue by failing to oppose a motion to dismiss holding that plaintiffs had waived the issue of remand by failing to raise it with the jpml or the district court holding that government waived right to challenge alleged error of district court in failing to impose statutory minimum sentence under  841b1b by failing to object to sentence announced by district court holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court