sentencing process and that we need to be concerned with that. So we went back and recalculated. I think it was the proper thing to do, and we ended up with a 22 and a 77 to 96 month range. And it at least gives you a better perspective on where we are; that while it’s not the range, it’s the what we call an alternative range, the range that would exist for a non-career offender. (R. 153, PageID 1545.) However, because Defendant never raised this issue before the district court, the error is subject to “plain error” review. See United States v. Wilson, 614 F.3d 219, 223 (6th Cir.2010) (“Because [defendant] failed to raise her procedural claim before the district court, we must evaluate it under a standard of plain error.”); United States v. Abboud, 441 Fed.Appx. 331, 334 (6th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). On plain error review, a district court’s
holding that forfeiture which is a simple failure to raise an issue merits plain error review holding defendants failure to raise the issue of the applicability of the correct manual at any  sentencing hearings  constitutes a forfeiture of the claim that he was erroneously sentenced which cannot now be considered without a showing of plain error holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error