departure based on combined factors, namely, his deportability status and his assertion that his drug crime was an episode of aberrant behavior. But the court explicitly rejected departures on both grounds, and this court does not have jurisdiction to second guess these determinations. The government raises one issue with respect to this appeal, arguing that Farouil should be overturned. The government’s position is problematic on several fronts. First, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the argument because the district court exercised its discretion and rejected the departure. Second, the government did not argue to the district court that Farouil should be overturned and thus forfeited the issue on appeal. See United States v. Staples, 202 F.3d 992, 995 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The government cannot establish that the
holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard holding that forfeiture which is a simple failure to raise an issue merits plain error review holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue holding that plain error review applies when a party fails to raise a claim before the district court holding defendants failure to raise the issue of the applicability of the correct manual at any  sentencing hearings  constitutes a forfeiture of the claim that he was erroneously sentenced which cannot now be considered without a showing of plain error