at the sentencing hearing, Sentencing Tr. at 16, and the PSR in turn listed all five, PSR ¶¶ 29-34. Although the court specifically mentioned only three of the five convictions at the sentencing hearing, Sentencing Tr. at 16, that discussion was meant only to exemplify the defendant’s prior criminal history. See id. at 20 (stating that the court was “considering the entire career of this man”). This was confirmed by the court’s written Judgment, which adopted the PSR and expressly discussed all five convictions. See App. at 24. We have considered and rejected the additional arguments raised by defendant regarding the calculation and explanation of his sentence, and conclude that they do not merit further discussion. 9 . Cf. United States v. Jones, 948 F.2d 732, 736-37 (D.C.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). 10 . We are uncertain precisely which offense
holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones holding that under ussg  4a13e which permits upward departures based on prior similar adult criminal conduct not resulting in a criminal conviction prior act of embezzlement was similar to present offenses of credit card and wire fraud because they all involved fraud holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding that a similar statute created separate offenses holding that a district court may depart upward based upon based criminal conduct when such conduct is not included in the computation of criminal history category