is able to impose enhancements on the basis of a defendant’s prior convictions. Battle also argues that the district court violated Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), by characterizing his prior convictions as “serious drug offenses” under § 924(e). However, we conclude that Battle’s argument is without merit because there were no disputed issues with respect to Battle’s prior drug offenses. Battle conceded at his change-of-plea hearing that he had been convicted of the necessary predicate offenses for the enhancement. Moreover, he did not object to the descriptions of the prior convictions in the presentence investigation report (“PSI”), and, thus, these facts should be deemed “admitted” for Booker purposes. See Shelton, 400 F.3d at 1330 (<HOLDING>). After the district court determined that §
holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading holding that a defendant admits to the psis factual statements about his relevant conduct where he raises no objections to those statements holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief