and Zambrana never objected to the manner in which the district court held the hearing. And because both men failed to challenge the manner in which the district court considered the evidence related to their motions for new trial, we will not address the issue here. See Haskins, 511 F.3d at 693; Charles, 476 F.3d at 495-96; Hernandez-Rivas, 348 F.3d at 598. But even if Zambrana and Ervin had preserved their challenges as to how the district court “informed its discretion,” the arguments would have failed. Because their substantive arguments in support of their motions for new trial are meritless, any purported procedural deficiency in the manner in which the district court weighed the evidence would have been harmless. See United States v. Kelly, 337 F.3d 897, 901-02 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Pinholster v. Ayers, 525 F.3d 742,
holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding that if a plea agreement is breached the district court may either grant specific performance or allow the defendant to withdraw the plea holding that the governments representations to the court that it was not seeking an upward departure suggested it had not breached the plea agreement holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement holding that district courts failure to hold evidentiary hearing to ascertain whether defendant breached plea agreement was harmless when it was clear defendant breached agreement