the state convictions indicated in his PSR as having been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Tr. of Sentencing Hr’g at 1813, R. Vol. XVIII. Wilson’s counsel also challenged the five-year statute of limitations in 21 U.S.C. § 851(e), which prevented Wilson from challenging the validity of the prior conviction alleged in the information. The court denied that challenge, and Wilson did not raise the issue on appeal. While Wilson argues the district court faded to make a finding regarding the existence of the prior conviction, the court did adopt the findings of the PSR, which included that conviction. We conclude that the court’s failure to engage in a specific inquiry did not amount to plain error in this case. See United States v. Thomas, 348 F.3d 78, 87 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation omitted). CONCLUSION For
holding a district courts failure to give the  851b colloquy does not affect the defendants substantial rights where the defendant failed to  challenge the conviction  alleged in the filed information and never revealed what challenges he was prepared to level holding that the district courts failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendants sentence was unreasonable holding that where the government filed an information identifying the conviction relied upon to enhance defendants sentence and counsel told the court that the defendant did not dispute the conviction the trial judges sentencing ritual here complied with the requirements of  851b holding that where the appellants listed challenges in the statement of issues but failed to brief them the challenges were waived holding that even if district courts failure to give statute of frauds instruction was error it was harmless because appellants failed to demonstrate how the failure to instruct on the statute of frauds affected their substantial rights