marijuana and of conspiring to distribute marijuana. On appeal, he does not challenge those convictions or the sentences he received for those convictions. 2 . As further discussed below in section 111(A) of this opinion, the phrase "crack cocaine” and its equivalent variant "crack” are commonly used terms for "cocaine base.” See, e.g., United States v. Kelly, 519 F.3d 355, 363 (7th Cir.2008) (noting that "crack cocaine” is a “form of cocaine base” and that " '[cjrack’ is a street term” for crack cocaine). We use the terms "crack cocaine” and "crack” interchangeably in this opinion. 3 . Appellant does not claim, nor can he, that he was entitled to a continuance due to any surprise caused by the amendment. See Willis v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 430, 438, 393 S.E.2d 405, 409 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Neither Virginia's Code nor its case law
holding that a motion filed as a rule 59e was not a motion to alter or amend the judgment and did not toll the time to file an appeal because the motion for costs was wholly collateral to thejudgment on the merits holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court holding that trial court erred in considering pro se motion for new trial filed when defendant was represented by counsel holding that a defendant cannot claim that the amendment surprised him when the motion to amend was filed well in advance of trial holding that indictment sufficiently informed defendant of the charge against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and thus there is no claim that he was surprised at trial