the case sub judice (the indictment, plea agreement, plea transcript and PSR), is replete with specific references and admissions to the possession of crack. Petitioner indicated that the government’s version of the events leading to his arrest were accurate, and that he had in fáct possessed with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. The Sixth Circuit addressed a more factually analogous challenge in United States v. Pruitt, 156 F.3d 638 (6th Cir.1998). Distinguishing James, the Sixth Circuit stated, “[I]n the present case, not only does the evidence demonstrate that crack cocaine was involved, as indicated by the PSR, but [the defendant] admitted in his testimony that crack cocaine was involved.” Id. at 648. See also United States v. Washington, 115 F.3d 1008, 1011 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Therefore,- the record , clearly reflects
holding no obvious error and distinguishing james on basis of the presentence reports uncontested use of a clear technical term clearly defined in the governing rules the guidelines holding that by adopting the presentence report the district court made the requisite finding under the guidelines holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious holding that apprendi error did not affect substantial rights where in the absence of the error the application of section 5g12d of the guidelines would have resulted in the same term of imprisonment holding that the rules governing interpretation of a lease are the same as those governing interpretation of a contract