and fair opportunity to establish that he is not the previously convicted individual or that the conviction is an inappropriate basis for enhancement under section 841.” United States v. Campbell, 980 F.2d 245, 252 (4th Cir.1992). The record indicates that the district court did not specifically question Mitchell or advise him as required under § 851(b). However, we conclude that the error did not affec ed in Mitchell’s case listed the 1993 conviction and indicated that it would increase the minimum mandatory custodial sentence, supervised release period, and minimum fine amount. Neither Mitchell nor his attorney raised any question about the conviction or objected to the contents of the presentence report prior to sentencing. See United States v. Hill, 142 F.3d 305, 313 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In addition, during the sentencing hearing,
holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report holding that failure to comply with  851b was harmless in part because defendant did not object to prior convictions listed in presentence report holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal holding that failure to comply with  851b was harmless because defendant was properly put on notice that the government was seeking an enhancement and defendant concluded that no valid grounds existed for challenging the convictions or enhancement after research holding failure to comply with  851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with  851c procedures for challenging prior convictions