the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case. On appeal, Sims argues principally that (1) the district court improperly declined to apply safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), (2) the district court erred in failing to ascertain how much of the cocaine base involved in the conspiracy offense was for personal use rather than distribution, and (3) his sentencing counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that the cocaine base involved in the offense was for personal use. We reject these arguments. Sims’s safety-valve argument is waived because Sims consistently declined the district court’s overtures at the sentencing proceedings to consider making a safety-valve proffer. See, e.g., United States v. Cuba, 955 F.2d 182, 187 (2d Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). At sentencing, Judge Hall explained that she
holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error holding that defendants failure to appeal the voluntariness of a plea constitutes waiver of the issue on subsequent appeal holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal holding that where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of  841b1c holding failure to object in timely fashion at trial results in waiver of issue for appeal