conclusively for all parties all questions arising in the administration of the [AMPP]...." R.17 at 61. 8 . Relying on cases in which we found the plans under review to confer upon administrators sufficient discretionary authority to warrant deferential review, the magistrate judge concluded that the AMPP grants the Ameritech administrators significant discretion and that a deferential standard should apply. The district court accepted this finding because Mrs. Swaback did not object specifically to it. 9 . See Filipowicz v. American Stores Benefit Plans Comm., 56 F.3d 807, 814 (7th Cir.1995) (concluding that ignoring the plain language of the plan and denying benefits was arbitrary and capricious); see also Egert v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 900 F.2d 1032, 1037-38 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Kochendorfer v. Rockdale Sash & Trim Co., 653
holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan holding that the defendants sentence was based on the career offender guidelines despite the fact that the district court calculated an offense level pursuant to the crack guidelines holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error holding court must review de novo companys denial of benefits unless benefit plan gives administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to construe terms of plan in which case courts review a benefits denial under an arbitrary and capricious standard holding that when guidelines contradict the plans requirements denial of benefits pursuant to guidelines was arbitrary and capricious