was involved.” Finally, we are not persuaded by Quin-tana’s argument that the government’s presentation of evidence that might have indicated Quintana was a manager necessarily demonstrated that the government was on notice regarding the managerial role criterion. In any drug conspiracy hearing, questions may be asked in an attempt to demonstrate the defendant’s involvement. Such questions do not mean that the government is attempting to prove the defendant served in a particular capacity. Based on the general nature of Quinta-na’s objections, and the course of the proceedings as just described, we are convinced that Quintana’s objections were not sufficiently specific to preclude the district court’s reliance on the PSR. See United, States v. Flores, 9 F.3d 54, 55-56 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); see also, United States v. Coleman, 132 F.3d
holding that petitioners general objection to each and every recommendation was not specific enough to preserve an issue under section 10e holding that a defendants general objection to his psrs recommendation of a sentence increase did not serve as an objection to specific factual allegations in the psr holding that error was preserved by running objection because of defendants immediate objection to states specific question in combination with trial courts comments showing that it understood nature of defendants objection holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully