US v. Walker, No. 07-2266 holds that a defendant intentionally abandoned her objection to a sentence that considered “her need for mental health and substance abuse treatment when determining the length of her prison sentence.” Counsel had argued that “...Walker's rationale for a below-guidelines sentence was that 48 months was a sufficient length of time for her to reap the benefits of the rehabilitative services offered within the federal prison system.” The court sentenced her to 77 months. Then, the defendant argues that under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a), putting her in jail wasn’t how to rehabilitate her.
The first says that this is more than waived, super-waived, or forfeited. Essentially because the defendant and the trial court agreed on the need to put her in jail for rehabilitation, but disagreed on the length of time “by affirmatively employing the same rationale to support her request for a below-guidelines sentence” she intentionally abandoned it.
I think there might be a bit more to it than this. Maybe counsel was arguing in the hypothetical.