necessary to achieve the purposes of the law” and thoroughly explained his plausible and defensible judgment call. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the sentencing judge’s determination. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Arsenault’s 780-month sentence. 1 . As this sentencing appeal follows a guilty plea, “we glean the relevant facts from the change-of-plea colloquy, the unchallenged portions of the presentence investigation report [ ('PSI') ], and the record of the disposition hearing.” United States v. Vargas, 560 F.3d 45, 47 (1st Cir. 2009). 2 . The government argues that Arsenault may have waived any dispute regarding the Guidelines computations by repeatedly failing to object. See generally United States v. Sweeney, 606 Fed.Appx. 588, 591 (1st Cir. 2015)(<HOLDING>). But we assume favorably to Arsenault that he
holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived holding issue not raised in the bankruptcy court was waived on appeal holding that issue not raised before the postconviction court was forfeited for the purposes of appeal holding forfeited theories will be reversed on appeal only if the appellant can satisfy the plain error standard holding that a waived issue ordinarily cannot be resurrected on appeal whereas a forfeited issue may be reviewed for plain error