to preserve for appellate review his acceptance-of-responsibility argument came up for the first time during oral argument. In its brief, the government did not argue that Mr. McGehee failed to preserve this argument. Consequently, a colorable argument could be advanced that we should overlook Mr. McGehee’s apparent failure to preserve his acceptance-of-responsibility argument because the government forfeited the right to object to it. See United States v. Heckenliable, 446 F.3d 1048, 1049 n. 3 (10th Cir.2006) ("Defendant concedes he did not challenge the validity of his plea before the district court. The Government, however, does not argue Defendant waived his present challenge, and accordingly, has waived the waiver.”); United States v. Reider, 103 F.3d 99, 103 n. 1 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). However, importantly, Mr. McGehee has never
holding that we do not consider the waiver issue where the government has not contended that these actions of defendant bespeaking waiver preclude defendant from challenging the relevant district court rulings holding waiver did not preclude rule 32d motion challenging validity of waiver due to ineffective assistance of counsel holding that a plea agreement with a waiver of direct appeal rights does not include a waiver of collateral remedies because the government could have included a waiver of collateral rights in the plea agreement and chose not to do so holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal holding that although the issue of waiver as to the appellants allegation of trial court error had not been addressed by either party this court could raise the issue of waiver sua sponte