him access to the methamphetamine when he needed it. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in finding § 3Bl.l(c) applicable. See United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir. 2003). Guzman also argues that the district court’s application of the § 3B1.1 enhancement was procedurally improper because the court relied exclusively on the PSR to resolve the issue, failed to explain its reasons for overruling Guzman’s objection to the enhancement, and determined Guzman’s Guidelines range by having an off-the-record discussion with probation officers. These arguments are subject to plain error review, because Guzman did not object to the § 3Bl.l(c) enhancement on these grounds in the district court. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). To show plain error, Guzman must show a
holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that party waived complaint regarding instruction where it did not raise specific objection recognizing that a party has not preserved a claim of procedural error if the party did not raise it in a manner sufficient to alert the district court to the specific error recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court