claim undue surprise. Defense counsel already had been granted a generous continuance. He knew the information contained within the PSI Report, and he had two months in which to prepare his rebuttal. The addendum did not contain any new information; it merely referenced trial testimony to refate the appellant’s objections and, concomitantly, to support the probation officer’s recommendation of a base offense level (BOL) of 38, a two-level upward adjustment for possession of a firearm, and a two-level enhancement for a supervisory role. The fact that the appellant received the addendum the day before sentencing, although vio-lative of Rule 32(b)(6)(C), is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish undue surprise. See United States v. Williams, 499 F.2d 52, 54-55 (1st Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the appellant’s claim that he did
holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense holding that the officer played no role in the prosecution because the police report provided to the prosecutor did not contain false information holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement holding an analogous violation harmless on the ground that the psi report did not contain any information that the defendant could not have anticipated despite the fact that the defendant received it five minutes before the disposition hearing