honor well i don't think it makes a difference to be honest with you the court requires that the rule requires that the court make that verification and if the court does not make that verification the rules violated whether or of the percent report and fact there is no evidence the record to indicate that he had in fact read the present report government relies on the fact that there was an objection raised to one paragraph in the present report and the government suggest that means to resolve all factual disputes or make explicit that he was not going to consider those facts in determining a sense of what's the fact that it was just you that if that was not was all with the facts were in  paragraph forty two of the pre sentence report which dealt with mr wade was snark conics conviction even though was a narcotic conviction this paragraph dealt with an allegation that he in fact had committed a robbery  and that's he was arrested for this robbery and then afterwards they found drugs and he was prosecuted for the drugs but details this supposed robbery in which he pulled a knife an individual and threatened him at knife point and threatened to sue to harm him and in indicated that the the so called victim believed what was in fear for his life and mr  sample to state of the ninth circuit case there was a factual objection here that was raised and that is you think enough to allow the court to reasonably rely on that as evidence that the defendant had in fact that it's unclear how otherwise defense counsel could have claimed that in fact there was a factual dispute if he hadn't gone through the court with his client this court's precedent here clear that it's not in fact required that the court ask directly of the which is specifically the failure to resolve a factual dispute the defendant is correct that in fact the government concedes that it was there that the court did not ask or did not resolve the factual issue there is a question whether arguably the objection was specific enough to trigger a factual dispute there's a case at least out of the tenth circuit suggesting that where the objection is nonspecific that does not trigger a duty to resolve the issue nonetheless we point out that the cases on the issue was one of the defendants experience in the drug trade and whether or not he had initiated the goshi actions that led up to the crimes for which he was being sentenced here however the objection was not to the actual conviction for  possession it was simply nonspecific objection to the description of the events leading up to that conviction as a result we think in this case there's no evidence that this was in fact harmful what the court explicitly referred the two convictions for residential burglary and a conviction for narcotics possession not two other items accordingly we think in that circumstance it would be appropriate for the court to find this albeit a technical violation not one that requires t two without explaining what the dispute is or what was incorrect about that description which makes it hard in a certain sense particularly because defense counsel didn't raise it at the hearing to understand what the dispute in fact lies but based on the transcript it does appear that the court simply focused on the conviction and then the repeated returns to the united states in reaching sentencing phase thank you  that's the victim reported having been robbed by mr latham that's what he was socializing in front of mr labels residence mr later called the victim over to the location of the victim as friend walked over to labor and they've asked them to empty their pockets when the victim and friend the clients comply he pulled out a kitchen knife from his front pocket told the victim shut up and do what i say he these are the events that mr flavor of jack to to these are the events he believes did not occur and should not be considered as part of sentencing and it's those the facts those facts that are in dispute and given that the court make clear that he was relying on mr latest past conduct his criminal history in determining the sentence primarily and criminal history included just these two burglaries when he was a juvenile and just turned eighteen over the over the course of ten days and this narcotics conviction which then he tells this robbery