had an issue with whether the government met its burden in regards to Count [Two].”). But Mr. McGehee provides no authority to support that proposition and it is not readily apparent to us that he could support it. So, we summarily reject this possible argument by Mr. McGehee. 5 . The issue of whether Mr. McGehee fail e such a government-forfeiture argument. Furthermore, although we do not accord the fact great weight in our analysis, we note that the government did contend at oral argument that Mr. McGehee failed to preserve the acceptance-of-responsibility argument — albeit on grounds that he purportedly forfeited it, rather than waived it. We arguably may accord some small benefit to the government for that step. Cf. United States v. Leichtnam, 948 F.2d 370, 375 (7th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). The government indicated
holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived holding that where the government does not argue in its brief and did not contend at oral argument that the defendant waived certain issues by not objecting to them at trial then the government waived waiver as a defense holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived