findings regarding the prior convictions, and he did not dispute the factual basis for the district court’s conclusions that he was a career offender. Accordingly, Lattimore’s assertion that his career offender enhancement violated the Sixth Amendment is without merit. See Collins, 412 F.3d at 523 (<HOLDING>). Lattimore also challenges various other
holding that where defendant did not dispute any facts supporting the career offender status in district court there is no constitutional violation in relying on defendants prior convictions holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines holding that application of career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts are undisputed making it unnecessary for district court to engage in further fact finding about prior convictions holding that the career offender guideline could not directly apply when there was an unsentenced conviction but allowing the district court on remand to consider departing from the guidelines in order to sentence a defendant whose conduct delayed his convictions as if the career offender provision applied holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender