in the testimony that the defendant has given. I’ll just make argument with respect to those things. Following this exchange, Quintana’s counsel did not raise the issue of managerial role. Rather, the first time that any party discussed managerial role at the hearing was when the government stated in its closing argument: “I don’t believe ... that the defendant can possibly receive a safety valve reduction because the presentence report has adjusted ... the offense level for his role in the offense under Section 3Bl.l(b) and there’s been no objection to that.” The only reply Quintana’s counsel offered was the statement in closing that, “[Quintana] doesn’t believe that he was an organizer or leader or manager or supervisor of others regarding the level of offense 0, 441 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The unobjected-to portions of the PSR
holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that a wifes net worth of approximately 62000 demonstrated her ability to pay her own attorneys fees notwithstanding her objection that her assets were illiquid in the form of home equity and a state retirement account holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine holding that a defendants argument that her psr overstated the seriousness of her past conduct was not a sufficiently specific objection to the fact of her previous conviction holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment