Forfeiture occurs because of neglect, while waiver happens intentionally. United States v. Charles, 476 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir.2007). Waiver precludes review, while forfeiture permits plain error review. Id. While Garrett failed to timely assert his challenge to the assessment of a criminal history point for his bail jumping conviction, there is no indication on the record that Garrett knew that his criminal history score might be erroneous, nor would he choose to be sentenced under a higher criminal history score and thus a higher Guidelines range. A logical explanation is that neither Garrett nor his counsel realized that including the bail jumping conviction was incorrect, therefore we review for plain error. See United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845, 847-49 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Under the plain error test, we must decide
holding that arithmetical error that resulted in an increase to a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights even though the resulting sentence was within the range for the correct offense level holding that the convening authority has unfettered discretion to modify the findings and sentence for any reason  without having to state a reason  so long as there is no increase in severity holding that a defendants confirmation of a psrs findings does not waive a challenge on appeal where there is no conceivable strategic reason for not objecting to a sentence at a higher offense level holding issues not raised at trial level cannot be argued for the first time on appeal holding that if the record does not reflect that the sentence was pronounced in the defendants presence there is no sentence and the court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal