be reviewed for plain error, apparently based on the fact that Aenlle did not raise any objections after his sentence was imposed. However, “so as long as a party states its objection to the sentence at some point during the sentencing hearing, its failure to repeat the objection at the conclusion of the imposition of sentence will not result in a waiver of that objection.” United States v. Hoffer, 129 F.3d 1196,1202 (11th Cir.1997) (discussing United States v. Weir, 51 F.3d 1031, 1033 (11th Cir.1995)). Aenlle adequately raised his objections that there was insufficient evidence to hold him accountable for the losses relating to Direct Nursing billing from June 2003 to June 2006 and the Prestige Pharmacy kickbacks, even though he did not reiterate them after sentencing. See id. at 1203 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the more stringent plain error
holding that government waived right to challenge alleged error of district court in failing to impose statutory minimum sentence under  841b1b by failing to object to sentence announced by district court holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that the government did not waive its objections to the district courts departure decision and the resulting sentence by failing to reiterate these objections after the sentence was imposed