who has pled guilty or been found guilty did commit the prior crime in question." Id. Under Massachusetts’ then-existing two-tier system, a defendant who was found guilty or admitted guilt at the first stage had a right to appeal to the second tier to obtain a de novo trial before a jury in the same court. Id. at 11-12. Roberts had "admitted sufficient facts” at the first stage of that trial de novo system. In that context, we were troubled by the possibility that an admission to sufficient facts might not adequately assure that the defendant committed the prior crime in question. We wer uvenile, defendants, which could make their admissions more reliable indications that the defendants committed the charged crimes. 9 . Cf. United States v. Morillo, 178 F.3d 18, 20, 21 (1st Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (citing Roberts, 39 F.3d at 13). 10 . We note
holding that the statutory maximum for apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant and without any additional findings by the court holding that this court reviews a booker issue de novo where the defendant objected in the district court to sentence enhancements based on facts not found by a jury nor admitted by the defendant holding that adult prior sentence based on continuance without a finding was properly counted as a diversionary disposition resulting from an  admission of guilt under  4a121 where massachusetts statute required judge to conduct a hearing and satisfy himself that there is a factual basis for the charge and where court had found that the facts as related by the prosecution and admitted by the defendant would support a conviction holding that a sentencing judge would violate section 3553a by limiting consideration of the applicable guidelines range to the facts found by the jury or admitted by the defendant instead of considering the applicable guidelines range as required by subsection 3553a4 based on the facts found by the court holding that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced