portion of the loss amount. Cf. United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (noting that the “doctrine of invited error is implicated when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error”) (citation omitted). Aenlle objected that the Presentence Investigation Report improperly included the billing of medical equipment by Direct Nursing between June 2003 and June 2006 in its loss amount even though no trial evidence showed that medical equipment billed during that time was medically unnecessary. Because Aenlle did not object to the inclusion of fraudulent Direct Nursing durable medical equipment claims from 2001 to 2003, he admitted the loss amounts for that time period. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). In any event, Aenlle does not argue on appeal
holding defendant failed to meet burden for acceptance of responsibility reduction where he objected in the psi but only made arguments at sentencing without offering evidence holding that because the defendant did not object to the factual recitations in the psi he effectively admitted the facts in the psi holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report holding that factual findings set forth in the psi not objected to by a defendant are deemed admitted holding that defendant admitted to the challenged aggravator when defense counsel stated at sentencing we didnt object to the factual basis in the presentence report because frankly we believed that the facts are true that are set forth in there