Ruiz only filed a written objection to one fact used to calculate her criminal history score. At sentencing she voiced no objections to any aspect of the PSR or to the sentence imposed by the court. Because Ruiz never contested any of the information in the PSR dealing with her role in the conspiracy, the amount of drugs involved in the conspiracy, or the probation officer’s conclusion that the 10-year statutory minimum applied, these were not controverted matters that required findings under Rule 32(c)(3)(D). We further conclude that under these facts Ruiz waived her right to complain of the failure of the district court to comply with our precedent requiring findings as to her relevant conduct in the conspiracy. United States v. Garcia-Pillado, 898 F.2d 36, 39-40 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Plisek, 657 F.2d 920, 925
holding that appellant by failing to object to commissioners authority before or at the administrative hearing waived any challenge 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 holding that when no statutory exception applies  the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal