which failure to present a ground to the district court has caused no one — not the district judge, not us, not the appellee — any harm of which the law ought to take note.’ ” Russian Media Grp., LLC v. Cable Am., Inc., 598 F.3d 302, 308 (7th Cir.2010) (quoting Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 2 F.3d 746, 749-50 (7th Cir.1993)). Here, Beverly’s failure to raise the allocation issue with the district court precluded the parties from further developing the record on the issue, and reasonably permitted the district court to infer that the issue was not so important to the parties as to constitute a material term. Beverly does not offer any reason on appeal that warrants the exercise of discretion here, and we decline to invent one. See S.E.C. v. Yang, 795 F.3d 674, 679 (7th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION The judgment of the district
holding that where the plaintiff made no attempt to contact the defendant by telephone or through his known attorneys service by publication was improper holding that a defendant who has successfully challenged his plea in one ease should be allowed to withdraw his plea in a second case when both cases were part of one negotiated settlement of his charges holding that venue was improper in the county of death because no other event occurred there holding that the case presented no justiciable controversy and that a review of the matter would render an improper advisory opinion holding that discretionary review was improper in part because the party made no attempt to demonstrate why his case qualifies as one of these rare cases