omitted). The question presented by Ruiz’s second argument is whether the district court’s failure to make such findings was plain error under either Rule 32 or our precedent. “Deviation from a legal rule is ‘error’ unless the rule has been waived.” Olano, — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 1777. Rule 32(c)(3)(D) only requires findings as to controverted matters. After Ruiz’s rearraignment the district court entered an Order for PSI, Disclosure Date, and Setting Sentence. The or der required that the PSR be made available to defense counsel when it was completed and required defense counsel and counsel for the government to file by March 9, 1992, either a statement of no objection or “[o]bjec-tions in writing to the facts of the offense and application of the sentencing guide Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Our research has turned up only one reported
holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court 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 the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report holding that defendant waived any objection to the accuracy of the presentence report by failing to object after having been given ample opportunity to do so holding defendant waived alleged factual inaccuracies in presentence report by failing to raise them in district court