in those proceedings. Andiarena, 967 F.2d at 718. However, Goldman must still show cause for failing to raise his claim regarding the 1977 conviction at his 1993 sentencing. See Prou v. United States, 199 F.3d 37, 47 (1st Cir.1999) (affirming that “a defendant’s failure to object [to an issue] at sentencing ... constitutes a procedural default, leaving the issue open to collateral attack only if the defendant can show cause and prejudice”); United States v. LaValle, 175 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir.1999) (rejecting government’s cause and prejudice challenge to petitioner’s § 2255 motion based on state vacatur of a predicate conviction because the petitioner had challenged the predicate conviction at his 1994 sentencing hearing); United States v. Maybeck, 23 F.3d 888, 892 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Goldman has not made this showing. Goldman
holding that the cause and prejudice standard applied to defendants failure to object to his career offender classification at sentencing holding defendants failure to object to the drug quantity assessment in the presentence report at sentencing was a waiver of the issue on appeal holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal holding that a showing of cause and prejudice fails to overcome a defendants initial failure to object